Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley | Hacker News Reader

I don't know who on the Obama team is spearheading his tech policy-- but thanks. You're doing better than I ever expected you could.

View on HN

This is actually one of the rare situations where I think it's not appropriate to credit the White House "team" for things. A decision to announce a veto threat, almost by definition, happens at the very top of the ladder. We really do need to be thanking the President and Chief of Staff on this, for listening to whoever on the team was spearheading tech policy and making a bold call based on those recommendations.

I think you're wrong. It's unrealistic for the President to have a strong opinion personally on every bill and item going through Congress.

He has a policy team that stays on top of all of it, and he is briefed as necessary.

He may have made the call, but the information and impetus to do so will have come from his team.

I'm looking for sources that describe the process, but I know I've read some Obama team related articles recently.

Jesus Christ, can we just credit both the decision maker and the brief-preparer? Or do we have to fight about it.

Are you referring to Jesus Christ the Son, or Jesus Christ the Father?

And where, may I ask, is the Holy Ghost in all of this? That's who I blame: Absentee Holy Ghosts, never making themselves immanent in Creation and leading to creeping Arianism in the population.

Your question implies a separation of the being! As a Monophysite I find this highly offensive and presumptive.

And Hacker News has officially turned into a less-funny Reddit. Thanks, guys.

No need to meta-fight it. Take a deep breath and acknowledge that you are officially old in Internet terms.

Now get off my lawn and no, you cannot have your ball back.

I swore I'd never be one of "those guys" who complains that a site he likes is going down the drain, but it seems like more and more of HN is dedicated to nit-picking these days. I guess I was wrong about myself. The foibles of youth.

It has its days. Certain posts attract more of the type of chatter you might prefer to avoid. Just remember that those people are wasting their time to post junk and not pursuing business goals to compete with you. :-)

The unfair part is when it's the type of chatter that you have an extremely hard time finding anywhere.

Nah, I think it's constant over time. Most people here are pretty goal-oriented.

Thank God for Reddit. If Reddit didn't exist as a contrast, this site would go down the drain.

While I'm sure the President doesn't research all laws he signs, Obama is somewhat tech savvy.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8&desktop_uri=%...

I wouldn't be surprised if he made the threat based on his own personal moral ideology.

Is this the same moral ideology that has lead him to drone brown people?

Unrelated

Obama himself probably doesn't know nearly enough about technology to make these sorts of decisions on his own. The difference between him and all the politicians who appear not to know anything about technology is that Obama hired a competent tech team and actually listens to them.

I don't think knowledge on the subject in this case particularly applies except in the opposite circumstance. Knowing nothing about passing a bill that changes the way things work currently is dangerous but being against a bill that does not do enough to clarify its effect on the status-quo, along with not having a deep understanding of technology, does not make that viewpoint any less credible.

Or it's political calculus...or he flipped a coin.

He also threatened to veto the NDAA[1]. I wouldn't put my money on him vetoing CISPA.

[1 http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-th...]

I was coming to say the same thing. I appreciated that he made the statement before the vote though. Note that it appeared to matter.

He threatened to veto the NDAA in one form, the bill was changed, and he didn't veto it as the changes he requested were made.

The veto threat is more than just a simple threat to veto, it's a tactic to make the executive opinion obvious and to try and influence lawmakers to change a bill before delivering it.

They obviously don't have to listen.

An NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comparable to CISPA

I think it's reference to to the bill that allowed gitmo-like 'hold indefinitely' powers to happen to US citizens on US soil.

Same bill.

Also, the brouhaha over that bill is over how it might be interpreted in a parallel universe where Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't exist.

Most people seem to not understand that that's the same bill. The NDAA is an annual bill specifying the defense budget. The indefinite detention provisions that upset so many people are attached to that bill.

As the President cannot veto part of a bill, vetoing the NDAA over those provisions would literally mean vetoing the entire defense budget.

That's fine. Veto the budget. Send them back to the drawing board. That would have been the best outcome.

I definitely understand that view, but on that drawing board are the words "two-thirds majority". It comes down to a choice between an impotent veto and an impotent signing statement.

Then choose the impotent veto and stand on the side of justice. I don't see that as a problem.

Obama disagrees with some details of the bill, not with the broad outlines. He wants the bill to pass, but he wants some also wants some changes made. He's using (threat of) veto power as leverage to get those changes made. A veto would be a blunt and somewhat counter-productive response, but veto power is the main piece of leverage that comes with the office.

So yeah, he actually likes the bill and the likelihood is that he will sign it or some form of it. The veto threat is just part of the dance.

Sorry for the dumb question: Is your comment about the NDAA or CISPA?

It's a general strategy, so it applies to the veto threats to both of those bills, as well as a number of others. I think it applies moreso to CISPA than to the NDAA, because my impression is that he has smaller reservations about the details of CISPA.

It's not tech policy, it's the national security council. If you read one of the linked articles (pre-veto threat), it's made clear that the executive agrees with the bill but wants a few more changes made.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-obama-ad...

"We continue to believe that information sharing improvements are essential to effective legislation, but they must include privacy and civil liberties protections, reinforce the roles of civilian and intelligence agencies, and include targeted liability protections. The Administration seeks to build upon the productive dialogue with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger over the last several months, and the Administration looks forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that any cybersecurity legislation reflects these principles. Further, we believe the adopted committee amendments reflect a good faith-effort to incorporate some of the Administration's important substantive concerns, but we do not believe these changes have addressed some outstanding fundamental priorities."

You have no friends in the executive branch. It is in their best interests to permit the most invasive and sweeping information gathering methods possible in the pursuit of their investigations. Keep in mind that the FBI and DHS, among others, ultimately report to the president.

Don't worry, it's just a PR-stunt. Just sit back and watch CISPA pass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com