Obama: Can't Have 100% Security, and Also Have 100% Privacy and 0 Inconvenience | Hacker News Reader

Obama: Can't Have 100% Security, and Also Have 100% Privacy and 0 Inconvenience

slog.thestranger.com

The only comment I'll make on this subject.

"When I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any other. Number one, to keep the American people safe. And number two, to uphold the constitution and constitutional rights to privacy and to civil liberties."

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

There's nothing in the Presidential oath that promises safety for American citizens. There's only one job sworn in the oath. To uphold the Constitution.

You had one job. ONE JOB.

"In a press conference just now, President Obama addressed the NSA surveillance programs, saying "we're gonna have to make some choices as a society" to examine how we deal with privacy issues and terrorism."

Right. And just how is society going to make informed choices about things they don't even know exist?

They're saying they aren't intercepting audio recording of phone calls, but can we really trust them at this point?

And he wasn't very clear about the online communications, from what I read so far. So probably Skype calls and such are intercepted and recorded anyway.

Obama specifically said "nobody is listening to your telephone calls", which is probably technically true. There isn't a person sitting there listening to them. If it's happening, it's an automated process and they're being archived, to allow for retroactive search and playback (probably with a warrant at that point to make it more legal).

You can't have 100% security anyway, and even if you could, I don't know that anybody considers that the goal. And I don't think most people who have actually thought about the issue would say that "100% security" is such a desirable goal that it would justify trampling all over basic rights.

You can't have 100% security period, so why are we giving up our privacy to reach an impossible goal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com