President Obama’s Dragnet | Hacker News Reader

President Obama’s Dragnet

nytimes.com

458 pointsforgotAgain139 comments

From the article:

"The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said today that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future."

That second sentence is the one that really caught my eye:

She said today that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.

Wow. Just wow.

Feinstein is one of the worst people in the Senate on civil liberties issues, and one of the foremost advocates of the national security state.

Ugh, I think I voted for her. :-( When is she up for reelection?

2018. But it's exceedingly unlikely that she has a realistic challenger in either the primary or the general elections.

She'll be 85 in 2018. There's a decent chance she'll retire.

My pennies are on California AG Kamala Harris being groomed for the same role and purpose.

There's a decent chance she'll die before then (of old age). Even better.

At least you're honest.

Feinstein's constituency is Silicon Valley. And while we know all about the Google/Facebook/Apple/Y-Combinator silicon valley, there's also that other Silicon Valley.

http://vimeo.com/15992737

Precrime. Minority Report becomes more real every day.

It's not even Precrime, more like Maybecrime.

If terrorists hate our freedom, then maybe this data collection shows Dianne Feinstein to be a terrorist. We need to access her information. I am sure she has nothing to hide.

Also convenient when we change our definition of "terrorist" and can reexamine the evidence with new eyes...

A little generalisation of her reasoning may lead to a conclusion that we should collect data on everyone since birth in case he becomes a criminal. It's scary.

worry not about that, but whatever in the future they decide are crimes warranting the use of this information. When they decide that is serves the purpose of the government to track tax issues this way, child support, or even political donations. The real future threat is that they don't seem to have limits of retention in place.

Said Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the Patriot Act:

“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the F.B.I.’s interpretation of this legislation,” he said in a statement. “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.” He added: “Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

When the fellow who introduced the Patriot act goes against something in the name of American privacy you know you've crossed the line that is political suicide.

And they don't have a 9/11 as an excuse this time.

Well, you know what they say: failure is an orphan. Warrantless wiretapping has been going on for however many years, and now he's got a problem with it? OK, bro, whatever you say.

Yes, absolute political suicide. That Obama guy will never be elected to any office ever again!

Oh, wait..

You're assuming a degree of intellectual and ethical consistency which I am extremely reluctant to ascribe to a sitting legislator.

Political suicide? Maybe in the past.

As much as I am glad that the guy is at least admitting that the phone record seizure is troubling, I can't help but be PISSED that many of us knew this was the inevitable result of the Patriot Act and this trend to let Government take care of us and protect us at the expense of our Liberties.

If only democracies or republics had a more immediately exercisable "I told you so" button.

What a dickwad. "I'm going to introduce this thing but I'm worried about the abuses". Then don't introduce it! Of course it will eventually get abused, what law hasn't?

> The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.

Yes. Fuck you Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and everyone who ever voted for the PATRIOT Act. Failed promises on Gitmo, mideast conflicts, drone murders, and civil liberties/domestic spying. I hope they impeach him for failing to uphold the Constitution.

I'm cynical, so I suspected this was probably happening all along. But my anger over this is still white hot. Our whole government is broken when leaders of both major parties blatantly lie and conspire to undermine our Constitution.

Did you vote for Ron Paul or one of the minority parties, or were you complicit in this farce?

Flip all the parties next go 'round. In a reliably red district and/or state? Vote Democrat, and vice-versa. Vote the bums out, especially the Yes on PATRIOT Act ones. The law of averages will keep the distribution we have now.

No, no no! Vote fucking independent in all cases. Fuck republican/democrat. They are a different view of the same database table.

Aren't you suddenly getting terrified about what the dossier created by data mining every phone call, every email, every article on every website you read, every comment you've ever left, every book you ever bought, every library book that you ever took out, the magazines that you subscribe to, every cent you've ever spent by card and where it was spent, every place you've ever lived, every place where you worked, every place you ever made a phone call from, every classmate you've ever had, how much electricity you use, and the same things about all of your probable friends - w/different data sources starting 7-15 years ago?

Are you even more terrified of the executive summary? Is it just me?

But remember, we have to disarm, because guns are evil you see. And because we can trust big brother, you see. The government knows what's best for us--after all, it knows everything about us.

This is the sort of reason the wingnuts cry about guns and gubberment, and unfortunately, they're looking a bit less alarmist with each passing day.

Be realistic, neither the political right or the NRA exhibited the least bit of opposition to the Patriot Act at the time of its adoption; 2nd amendment types were too busy printing and buying bumper stickers such as the one below for their cars.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f258/heyman1104/My%20Rivie...

An accurate and unfortunate picture--consider how many similarly silly baubles and propaganda pieces (Darwin fish, anyone?) are sold to people on the other side of the aisle. People are dumb and silly and tacky regardless of ideology.

I'm being perfectly realistic. Every time the topic comes up here on HN--one of the more rational places of discussion I've encountered--we see the same strong anti-gun sentiment come out, very frequently with the caveat that it's okay for the .gov and .mil to be armed while the citizenry is not.

We can't at once both be outraged at the erosions of privacy and civil liberties and at the same time flabbergasted at the idea that people lack the faith in their government to grant them a monopoly on force.

The parent didn't mention the political right or the NRA. There are a massive number of gun rights supporters that do not fall into such convenient stereotypes.

'Wingnuts' (which the GP did mention) is a colloquial term for the right wing populace.

They did oppose it the first time around when a Democrat (Joe Biden) introduced it. Yay for partisan politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_o...

(According to Biden, the Patriot Act was basically the same thing as his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act.)

Aha. So, now, since you haven't disarmed yet, your government is still afraid of you, right? And they wouldn't, say, break the constitution and unlawfully spy on all their citizens, now, would they? Oh wait, they do! So how did the guns prevent it?

Do you really think the situation would be better if the government knew--knew--they could march into your house at any time and black-bag you with total impunity? I'd rather the doormat factor not be absolute.

Give me a break. Citizen gun ownership is not a deterrent to spying nor incarceration if the gov't chooses to act on its covertly gathered info.

Nope. It was obvious from the get-go that the purpose of the Patriot Act was to normalize what had previously been the domain of covert investigations of individuals. I don't personally feel terrified about it because I am too boring to become a likely object of suspicion; realistically, the chance of my being swept up in a government intelligence operation is about as likely as my being blown up by terrorists. And frankly, the Patriot act has had considerably less impact on individual liberties and Democratic participation that I expected it to at the time it was passed.

On the other hand, I'm quite depressed that it's taken people so long to put it together that they're willing to buy into the idea that Obama a) invented it or b) had the freedom to single-handed dismantle it. The entire country badly needs a remedial course in civics, not least in Congress's ongoing game of hot potato.

This book predates the war on terror but seems extremely relevant: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Without-Responsibility-Congress-...

Obama switched his stance to be in support of the Patriot Act/FISA extension _right in the middle of the 2008 primaries_! Chris Dodd, who was also running, led a huge filibuster effort AGAINST it. He ultimately failed and was one of the first to drop out. Moreover, for the record, Joe Biden is largely considered one of the architects of what became the Patriot Act, from his 1995 Omnibus Terrorism Bill (after the Oklahoma City bombings.) It's like a source document for the current legislation.

So, yes, Congress passes these laws, but yes, Obama, Biden, and the majority of Democrats also do bear responsibility. Obama is the President. He signs off on, and executes this and is in favor of it and it was known before he was elected.

Obama switched his stance to be in support of the Patriot Act/FISA extension _right in the middle of the 2008 primaries_!

This is true, so that rather invalidates the complaint that 'this isn't what we voted for.' Much like military incursions into Pakistan to target bin Laden, Obama himself clearly ran as a conservative Democrat, but a lot of people projected their own views onto him without paying attention to his actual platform.

He signs off on, and executes this

He has limited the scope somewhat through signing statements, but I feel bound to observe that the huge majorities with which Congress passed the original Patriot act and its various extensions make his signature a mere formality - even if he wiped his ass with it on national TV, it would still be the law and he would still be required to faithfully execute it.

I'm not confident that opinions that I've expressed or activities that I've engaged in will not be targeted by future administrations. For example, I'm an atheist, and have associated with atheists. Who's to say that won't get me rounded up in 30 years?

When I was younger (I'm nearly 40 now) there were very few records of anything that I did, and to have a government file was unusual, not a few keystrokes away for LE to generate a file on anyone. We're all guilty of crimes, questionable opinions, and questionable associations that leave digital remnants. I'm starting to think that I don't need a cellphone anymore.

>I'm quite depressed that it's taken people so long to put it together that they're willing to buy into the idea that Obama a) invented it or b) had the freedom to single-handed dismantle it.

This is what depresses you? I don't give a shit who the general population blames, and the idea that Obama had no ability to dismantle it would be a controversial statement anywhere. We've had presidents who've carried on entire wars without Congressional approval.

Well, you're not likely to get show in Brazil or South Africa either but it's best to just not live in such places because if it actually happens, it's too late to react. The PATRIOT act may not have had the worst possible consequences yet (as far as we know) but it's still in effect. It's like a standing reverse lottery of misery.

This article would have been stronger if it had contained a bit of introspection. Why did it require a UK paper to uncover this operation?

UK reporter can't be subpoenaed?

edit: nevermind, guess the reporter is an American...

Because he knows where to get good fish and chips?

You guys are such idiots! Please more bad karma I beg for it!

The "UK reporter" is Glenn Greenwald, an American: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

Think he lives in Brazil though.

I agree. Investigative reporting in the US has been on a downturn for the last 15 years or so. Many newspapers have had to cut back on resources because of declining readership and its hard to expect decent investigative news from any of the network news stations because they are just pandering to their own audiences for ratings and whatnot. It also doesn't help the president Obama and his administration have been incredibly hard on journalists and those who leak information as we have learned over the last month. Even though it was the Guardian that was the paper that reported it, Glenn Greenwald, an American, is the author of the original article. Either way, I'm just happy this has come to the public eye and has confirmed many suspensions. I hope that this rallies enough support so either amendments to the Patriot Act can be made it can be repealed entirely.

which of the major issues that the Obama Administration has the major US media broken recently? None. We have had nearly five years of a silent, complacent, if not compliant, major news media in the US. Sadly we have to resort to foreign news sources to get to the story.

Don't be surprised if Al-Jazeera breaks a story before one of ours does.

Well, given how the administration has treated publishers[1], who can blame them?

[1] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-13/world/39226618...

Your comment implies that Al-Jazeera is a poor source of news. Is there a reason you feel that way, other than their lack of reporting on Qatar?

I find that they have excellent coverage of Africa, Asia, and most of the Middle East.

(Sorry if that wasn't your intention)

I think the implication was that Al-Jazeera does little coverage of the US.

Al Jazeera English is an excellent source of world news, but their focus really is not on the US, unlike most domestic news outlets. One would therefore normally suspect that they would be less likely to break major US news, but in reality I think most of us would expect the opposite.

It's always been like this. I left the US a decade ago and couldn't believe how different the news was once I was outside.

Question: At what point does the average statist admit that the libertarians (s)he has been belittling for so many years as tin-foil hat crackpots were far more savvy about the nature of the state than they were?

Answer: never

Stopped clocks, once a day, etc. ;)

In all seriousness, though: civil liberties are one of the very few areas where libertarians and liberals (I presume "statist" was meant to be a jibe) can agree. Liberals were in fact among the groups pissed off about the PATRIOT Act, FISA, et al, during the Bush years.

By this point, nearly a decade later, I'd resigned myself to the fact that nobody cared. I can't decide if I'm pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised that this is finally getting more attention.

Yes, civil-liberties advocates have been on this particular horse since before the term "libertarian" even came into widespread usage. Various kinds of attempts at dragnet surveillance, at various scales, have been an active issue of controversy going back decades (e.g. in the McCarthyist era), and civil-liberties groups like the ACLU have been pretty consistent in opposition.

Yes, never, because a completely unaccountable corporatocracy is not a suitable replacement. Social democrats like myself believe in the power of a transparent, strong, supportive, accountable and fundamentally democratic state and are not going to give up fighting for it.

This isn't an argument to blow up the state in favour of an alternative which has proven itself often to be worse than the state in matters of privacy and libterty, it's a call to increase the public pressure for reform.

Good luck combining a strong government, with an accountable one. Political power tends to corrupt toward not wanting to be accountable.

Oh stfu about libertarian bullshit. Show me another first world nation anywhere on the planet that is libertarian. Show me any libertarian nation of any kind that isn't awful. You know the US concept of "libertarian" doesn't exist outside the US? That's because the rest of the world realizes it's useless.

It should be mentioned that it was written by the Editorial Board of NYT.

I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.

What's the significance of this?

The NYT tends to criticize Obama less harshly than the WSJ. Of course, the exact opposite was true during the Bush years.

No American paper commenting on the more interesting issue of why it took a UK news organization to uncover this.

The New York Times is known for being incredibly loath to criticize Obama, particularly on issues related to due process, wiretapping, the PATRIOT act, the "state secrets" doctrine, drone assasinations, etc[0].

The fact that Obama has been doing this isn't news; the fact that even the NYT is coming out and criticizing him for it is.

The Wall Street Journal has historically been the polar opposite, from an editorial perspective.

(Also, the other significance is that this is the editorial team, whose purpose is to opine - this is not the news team, which are supposed to attempt to remain 'objective').

[0] Basically, a large part of the foreign policy for which Bush was criticized during his presidency and which Obama has doubled down on.

Criticizing a president for wire-tapping puts the NYT in an incredibly awkward spot, as they forced their reporter to shelve the Bush wire-tapping scoop until after the 2004 election, back when privacy violations were still something people could get up in arms about.

> What's the significance of this?

I cannot remember (I'm 49yo) the NYT ever going from endorsing a candidate [1] to "The administration has now lost all credibility." That's quite a fall politically.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obam...

Edit: I have to agree with them, but I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration.

> I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration.

Why would it? It's pretty obvious Obama's complicit in this - why would he fire those who are implementing policies that he's supporting?

In politics, you fire those below you to save yourself. Even if they did right by you.

People would only be fired if this program is scandalous to the American public.

All the evidence suggests that the American public doesn't mind privacy violations as long you say "child pornographer" and "terrorist" a lot when you talk about them.

Justifications for some, sacrificial firings for others. Just like Abu Ghraib.

When presented with new data, some people change course. I am hoping Obama falls into that class.

New data? Do you really think this is news to Obama?

Maybe the 'new data' in this case is how we react to finding out about the existence of the programs.

> Do you really think this is news to Obama?

Do you really think the NYT headline was known to Obama? So yes: The reaction of the populace is news.

Again: Some people change course when presented with new data. While politicians and partisans rarely fall into that camp, I'm hopeful that Obama does.

He presumably changed course once already (when he received 'the news' that he could get away with the sort of shit he had many convinced he wouldn't do). With any luck he'll change course again with the new 'news' that the first news was wrong.

However I cannot say that I am optimistic.

So the "new data" you're talking about is the fact that he got caught? Maybe the change he'll make as a result is more secrecy instead of less of this kind of program.

What will it take for Obama-ites to finally give up on the man? If you had video of him eating a baby saying "fuck america!" would that be enough, or would you still hope he could turn things around?

Rule number one of plumbing: Shit flows downhill.

He habitually fires inconvenient people. If they leave gracefully, like Susan Rice did, he brings them back as something else.

The New York Times did not write "The administration has now lost all credibility." You made a very misleading statement.

What they actually wrote was "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue." (emphasis added) Quite a bit of difference there.

Edit: apparently NYT did some hasty editing, I apologize--You didn't make any misleading statements[1].

[1] http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/245566/245668/www.nytimes.com/...

The line was in an earlier edit:

> "The administration has now lost all credibility."

http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/245539/245566/www.nytimes.com/...

History in the making

With the deep, unconscious sigh which not even the nearness of the telescreen could prevent him from uttering when his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. Then he unrolled and clipped together four small cylinders of paper which had already flopped out of the pneumatic tube on the right-hand side of his desk.

[...]

As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.

If the NYT publicly states that his administration "has now lost all credibility" it should be significant. They are the flagship liberal / progressive newspaper in the country. Their blunt outrage signifies an important element of his party's support is rebelling against the President's actions.

However he will probably be able to just shrug it off. US citizens have become too fat and lazy to give a damn about anything but tax cuts and their entitlement. They've forgotten that this is still a world where you have to fight for what is important.

I did grow up in West Germany during the 80ies, and at that time I was told that we were on the right side of the wall, because our government does not kill people, does not torture people and does not spy on its own population. Sometimes I wonder who won the cold war.

I think with the fall of the rivaling system, the need for the western world to differentiate itself just went away.

I really think of Obama government as populism (disclaimer: I live in another country with a lot of populism). The IRS scandal is part of that. He plays nice cards in public but in secret he has another agenda. At one point you connect the dots when he plays the same tricks.

From what I've seen, Obama is pretty peeved about the IRS thing. Mainly because it spent a lot of political capital he needed for other projects... like this one.

Pretty peeved they were caught?

No, they're not peeved at all. If he was, he'd be burning the IRS alive. They've spent all their effort so far on deflection, lying, covering-up, etc.

Keep paying US taxes and voting. That should work.

(But seriously. It's time. Pack your belongings and leave. Vote with your tax dollars, please.)

Leave where? Everyone always says that, but where would be better (mainly in terms of civil liberties)?

Yeah, leaving doesn't work. The solution is sadly not that simple.

But neither does voting. How could voting work when the public is not even suppose to be aware of this sort of thing? This sort of secrecy is incompatible with democracy. Without being able to make an informed decision the best you can do is vote for the candidate that assures you that they will have a transparent administration.... oh wait.

Yes, it works great. I know because I tried it.

Leaving works for individuals fortunate enough to be in a position where it is feasible. Unfortunately it is not a solution that can be applied across the board. Even assuming every concerned American had the means to leave, such a mass exodus of Americans would surely cause concern in any country they might wish to flee too.

Only the innovators need emigrate for the plan to work, fortunately.

Canada? I say this as a Canadian who's aware of our own issues...

Leave to the smaller country. Like Saint Lucie, for example. Any smaller in size and as result less economically/technologically developed country where technology is in bare use, not to mention in broad use by country's government. Ultimately, there won't be a rock or an inch of earth left without some satellite taking high-res 60 stills per second and some sort of sonic device taking 3-d snapshots of a sound-field. But before then, hopefully our generation will be dead.

Earth is truly become Orwellian's nightmare. Now I understand why Musk said we need to go to Mars; otherwise we extinct.

I can't speak to Saint Lucie specifically, but I always wonder the same thing when someone mentions a specific country: are they speaking to rights afforded to everyone who comes in, or just citizens? How long until one is made whole in that country?

A lot of places are better in terms of civil liberties. Most of western Europe (though stear clear of the UK).

Any suggestions, where to go?

Come over to Australia!

Do a search on first world countries. Most of them will be fine.

I enjoy these type of comments. They mostly come from Americans who have never looked into the requirements to "leave" legally. It turns out the rest of the world has immigration laws that are just as strict or more strict than America's so unless you're young and you're filthy rich, in a very specialized field that country needs, or ridiculously good looking you're probably not welcome in country X.

Exactly this. If you think it's so simple to emigrate from the US, go ahead and try. I'm sure it wouldn't be too onerous for the types that frequent HN, but for the 99.9% of the population that's less affluent and less technically skilled, you're stuck here.

I did it five years ago, to Germany. No problem, you just need a job offer. It has to be mildly specialized to justify hiring you over a local, but this is a very loose requirement that's easy to bend if your employer so desires.

Germany also has no shortage of relatively unskilled Turkish immigrants who are simply working at restaurants.

I did, and it was.

Also, I was speaking to HN when I suggested it.

Please keep your comments relevant and productive. A snarky "this" doesn't add a lot to the discussion, especially when your silly claim is exactly at odds with reality.

Harper's magazine gave a detailed and amusing guide on "Electing to Leave" the US after Bush's reelection. It covers everything from emigrating to Canada to founding your own micronation.

I finally found a copy here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-29.htm

Good lord! Moving to Canada?

I grew up in Canada and the amount of political apathy there is astounding. The US might have a lot of crappy laws and politicians, but Americans seem much more politically involved than.

I emigrated five years ago. It's tough, no fuckin' foolin'.

The alternative is to go to bed every night knowing that a double-digit percentage of your value and productivity that day went to fund building bombs and buying and installing fiber splitters.

I just couldn't do it any longer.

FWIW, I have none of those circumstances you describe, and it was relatively easy, practically speaking— and I moved to Germany, one of the best places on Earth to live. The hard part was leaving my job, family, friends, and girlfriend behind on a different hemisphere.

I assume you got your national ID card and register at the police station every time you move.

You think the US doesn't do this? They don't make you register when you move because they'll update their databases when you file your taxes.

I've never registered anywhere and I have moved a lot. In the states we have at least 20 million undocumented. In Germany you legally have to report someone that doesn't have an ID card.

You don't have a social security card or drivers license? You don't file taxes? You don't have to register anywhere because they don't need that. They update all that kind of information when you file taxes.

>You don't have to register anywhere because they don't need that.

That is not a very good argument. Why do the Germans need you to register at the local police station?

Convenience. The reason you have to register is because you moving somewhere puts some level of strain on that community. This registration gives them a chance to get a handle on city migrations. They do the same thing in Switzerland. I don't remember who, but a very rich man was denied the ability to move to some low population city because they couldn't figure out what they would do with his tax money (warning, I've not verified this actually happened but I imagine it could).

The national ID card is only for citizens; I am not a German citizen.

Registering with the police when you move is standard practice with all countries, USA included - you are required to give your SSN to every single DMV now to receive your state ID card/driver's license. They are available in every police cruiser. Are we going to split hairs over which agency runs the server the laptops in the police cars get to query?

I'm sure many weak and cowardly people from the American Revolution said the same thing. It may seem hopeless but people (not just Americans) need to stand up put their governments in check. We live in a very unique time and have unique challenges that people in the past did not have to face, but that doesn't mean things are hopeless. Governments go through phases of corruption and abuse of power, it is up to citizens to put them back in balance.

People from the American Revolution took up arms, and many of them died. Are you ready to do that? I'm not. If not then leavings probably a more realistic option. Call me a coward if you like, but I've already escaped. How many people have joined your militia so far?

Can't vote with your tax dollars unless you renounce your citizenship. And that feels like abdicating responsibility to me.

The Noble American Tradition of Tax Resistance:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-04-11/article/...

That's not true in practice. You always need to file taxes to the US no matter where you live, but you only pay to the US if you paid less overseas (you pay the difference, you don't double pay). Almost any county you'd want to live in (except tax havens) will have higher taxes than the US.

I doubt that. There are plenty of places in Asia or Latin America that you would probably have a lower tax bill in.

You have to file taxes for 5-10 years even if you renounce your citizenship.

How the hell does that work? How do they claim to have authority over you once you are no longer a citizen?

I can't find where I thought read that, so I'm probably wrong.

Authority is the ability to execute on that authority and the USA has plenty of execution ability.

In practice, it's how extradition works for non-citizens who never set foot inside the USA, or bank account freezes for people who don't live in the USA.

Not true. Renouncement does substantially restrict your ability to re-enter the US, however.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...

The rule you are talking about applied only to expatriation between 2004-2008 and then only if you spent more than 30 days per year in the US after relinquishing citizenship.

Only if they decide you did so for tax reasons (which is just a formula they apply to your earnings and assets. hint: if you're going this route, do it fast as these numbers drop every year).

False.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Forei...

My line 14 has been zero for several years. I am a US-born American citizen.

That's only because Germany has some of the highest taxes in the world (can be upwards of 50%). Try moving to Lichtenstein (~10% income tax) and see how long you don't pay taxes.

No, I never work in Germany.

That worked so well for Anwar al-Awlaki.

Well, you might want to avoid 3rd world shit holes, and joining terrorist groups.

Uh, you realize leaving doesn't change your tax situation, right? You still have to file every year and you still may be liable for taxes. Also, if you live in a "tax heaven" then you have to report any bank account you have signing authority over (including any pension, etc.). So don't plan on being a stock trader in your new country, that's not going to happen. Don't plan on having a bank account with any non-international bank because they won't take americans.

BTW, the US is the only country in the world to behave this way (well, perhaps NK but that's not exactly a favorable comparison, is it).

The 'Patriot' Act was written 8 days after 9/11. It is time for it to go and be rewritten in saner times.

The founders and framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the tyranny that can happen, but they have never seen what abuse of technology can be in terms of privacy.

The people that say 'they have nothing to hide' don't realize that personal, business, ideas, private, market information can really be used in many other ways beyond helping fight terrorism.

Strong anonymization and approvals to access the individuals responsible for the info need to be rethought and it should be a public discussion if all our data will be accessible.

Or how about scrap it and don't rewrite anything. Terrorism is no threat to the US, just stop making a big deal about it. The boston bombers killed 3 people. That's like 1 car crash.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal says it well:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2961#c...

but also:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2974#c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com