Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcantelon | Hacker News Reader

That explains the Patriot Act and fun stuff like MAIN CORE, but there seems to be a pattern beyond old-fashioned domestic surveillance: DHS, Northcom, Infragard, secret prisons run by ICE, federal direction of local law enforcement (i.e. Operation FALCON), domestic use of drones, the push for body scanners/pre-crime detectors, the ability of the federal government to assassinate US citizens, the "watch list" that feds can keep you on even if you've been cleared or wrongdoing, etc.

The biggest federal building project since the Pentagon is the DHS HQ:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/homeland.security.hea...

View on HN

What interests me most is the change in Obama's domestic security stance after assuming the presidency. Remember his promises to close Guantanamo Bay? Now Obama seems more authoritarian than President Bush was.

To me, this radical change in stance suggests that there is in fact a credible domestic threat against the United States - that Obama, on assuming the presidency, learned some things that made a deep-enough impression on him to transform his stance on national security. I don't like that conclusion, but to me, that's the simplest interpretation of his behavior. (I'd love to hear other, less frightening interpretations. As it is, I try not to think about this stuff too much.)

If so, perhaps many of the actions of this and the past administration are justifiable as lesser evils - perhaps. However, the executive branch shouldn't get to make this determination alone. It's not necessarily the administration's decisions that are the problem here, but the complete veil of secrecy around them that's keeping us from having an informed debate.

Is the only thing that changed in Obama's position his stance on security? If not, then I think there are several very simple explanations that might apply: * He didn't mean some or all of the things he said as a candidate and never intended to take action on them. * After he took office, he had to answer to more powerful interests who would not allow him to take action on campaign promises. * While campaigning, he promised things that he's incapable of taking action on, whether he knew it or not at the time.

Any of these explanations could be applied to any recent candidate for the office of PotUS.

>I don't like that conclusion, but to me, that's the simplest interpretation of his behavior. (I'd love to hear other, less frightening interpretations. As it is, I try not to think about this stuff too much.)

Another possibility is that the US powers-that-be have looked at America's long term economic prospects and have decided that America must change to survive. China and India are becoming dominant economic forces and if the US wants to compete it may want to impose new labor standards on Americans and strip them of benefits. This would, of course, create the possibility of a popular uprising. In preparation for this eventuality, they may be using counter-terrorism as a cover for counter-insurgence preparations.

That's an interesting argument. whether or not one agrees with the premising, it's interesting to consider that those at the top might.

God forbid we the people (of the US) put a stop to untaxed imports and the like and stop feeding the beasts oversees. Perhaps too late for that to have much impact now, anyway. Somehow we managed to compete with the Soviet's without being pressed into serfdom, but I guess it doesn't matter what I believe.

Check out Crypto by Steven Levy for an example of large gov agencies like the FBI/NSA influencing the government. In the 90s there was a big push for crypto and the government was afraid that it would loose all ability to obtain unencrypted communications so they created the clipper chip(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip). Basically a secure encryption device with a backdoor held by some government agency requiring a warrant to obtain.

While this scheme was being hatched, an election happened and Clinton was elected. The FBI and NSA went on all out propaganda mode with the new elected officials to convince them that the end of the US was near if this wasn't forced on the people. While Clinton and his entourage were against this stuff during the campaign and seemed pro tech industry they quickly switched stance in favor of the new plan. The public outcry at the time prevented the clipper chip from ever getting accepted but it took a lot of bad press about it, something we don't see today with the new crappy laws.

So frankly I can see how this could happen to Obama and his administration. The FBI was one of the worse groups in this story, they wanted even more than just keys obtainable by warrant they wanted a phone away ability to get the decryption keys. I don't think they are any less power hungry today. And with a monster the size of the DHS the misinformation/influence must be even greater.

>that there is in fact a credible domestic threat against the United States

Against the United States... or against the US elite?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com