Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency | Hacker News Reader

Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency

bbc.co.uk

37 pointsComputerGuru42 comments

Well, here's my thoughts - First, why the hell would you trust that the "transparency" would be real? Admit what Snowden revealed, and keep the next violation of human rights under wraps. If we can't verify transparency, it would have to be based on trust - and I see a distinct lack of both the ability to verify the NSA's claims and reasons to trust the NSA.

Second, why would you trust President Obama to follow through on a promise? I believe he promised protections for whistleblowers on the campaign trail, after all.

And third, what good does knowing that the NSA monitors everything do, when all that really does is give them carte blanche to use the data however they want, knowing it won't expose the program? (Program being already exposed)

Well said. It won't even matter that the surveillance program is "transparent" if it causes detriment to US hosting providers & also causes the chilling effect.

No deal, Obama.

I agree that it would be foolish to trust anything Obama says at this point. But I also found a bit of solace in his paying lip service to the Constitution. Given the government's increasingly open hostility toward anything resembling liberty or reason, I had developed a foreboding about how quickly things might devolve into totalitarianism. At least for now it seems we have achieved a temporary moment of stability.

Exactly.

It will be just another tasteless joke, until they are made just as transparent for us as we have been transparent for them, all these years.

> Mr Obama said there had been more anti-American rhetoric since President Vladimir Putin returned to Russian presidency.

I like how this implies the anti-American rhetoric is because of Putin becoming president, rather than America doing things that it actually deserves to be criticized for.

"We're sick of people criticizing us, but we're going to keep doing all the stuff that caused that criticism".

"It's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programmes; the American people need to have confidence as well."

Great tactic. Redefine the problem. NSA is not the problem. Confidence is.

I think the NSA should exist, so it is not the problem. Balancing safety and privacy is the challenge. Preventing abuse is the challenge. Having enough transparency that we are comfortable is the challenge.

So can you tell me how has NSA protected you? What has it done?

The NSA should be about protecting privacy & communications infrastructure by hardening crypto security.

Don't they do some of this already? I just think this is what they should be focusing on, rather than gathering data.

When people say "but government is supposed to do that" it sounds almost like a religious belief. Just because the holy book - in this case, the constitution - says so, it doesn't mean it is so. It also doesn't mean we should somehow fix the government. When a religious person complains his priest is not praying hard enough for him that's why he's not doing so good, the solution is NOT to find a better priest.

But a less abstract reply to your comment should be this: what does protecting privacy and communication mean in the case of NSA doing it, how is it done specifically and why does it make you safer?

Listening into communications between known terrorists is legitimate. I'm sure this function has "protected" me in some abstract sense.

It tries to prevent terrorism before it happens. I don't expect it to give us a detailed breakdown of its activities toward this end. What I expect is for there to be good checks and balances along with consequences for the bad actors when abuses happen. They have not done a great job on those fronts, but the agencies existence and mission is not a problem by itself.

"I don't have confidence in you, or these programs. You're a lame duck and a doormat, for letting these programs continue."

> [Lack of] Confidence is [the problem].

Funny, the federal reserve uses the exact same strategy.

They must not grasp that confidence is an outcome of a process, and you can't target outcomes.. you have to target processes.

    Mr Obama said: "No, I don't think Mr Snowden was a 
    patriot."

IMHO the word "Patriot" has become the worst kind of weasel word. It can basically be twisted any way by the speaker to launch an ad hominem attack on someone.

Given the revelations of the past two months, I'm certain that many many Americans don't think that President Obama is a patriot either since he's basically sold out on the Bill of Rigthts, a core pillar of our nation. On the other hand, Obama's use of patriot at this PR event basically means someone who provides defenses for the country against perceived existential threats and does not weaken them. By that definition, Snowden would probably not qualify as a patriot according to many.

Given your values, the meaning of patriot can change between two definitions that are at odds with one another. This makes it a useless word that plays to emotion and lowers the level of discourse dramatically.

Besides those two defitions, many characteristics of someone who is patriotic are interchangeable with the characteristics of someone who is a bigot. Just like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's patriot is another man's bigot.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Particularly used in the negative tense (calling someone unpatriotic). Hermann Göring did the same thing.

> This makes it a useless word that plays to emotion and lowers the level of discourse dramatically.

Those outside the United States have known this for a long time with regards to more words in common use in the US, and we are dumbfounded when, for example, Bush Jr. would repeatedly use similar words such as; Liberty, Freedom, Justice, Tyranny

I read, "You will have more access to the documents we want you to see." and "We want to figure out how to get the American people to be OK with us violating their constitutional rights, because I'm OK with it."

I'm furious that reporters just kept throwing soft balls at him in the face of the Special Operations Division revelations. If that's not abuse, what is?

Yeah, that's the one that totally clearly crosses the line for me. It's not a Hoovering thing, it's not a "this will almost certainly be abused some day" issue, it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" abuse of due process, no matter what sophistry is used to justify it. And amply confirmed, e.g. by a paragraph in an IRS document (saying to never mention it or the like).

I was an Obama supporter during his first presidential campaign. I remember some people warning that Obama would be a disaster. I tried to listen to what they said, but I couldn't find any criticism at that time that made sense, just some wingnuts saying that he was the AntiChrist, or that he wasn't born in the US (me neither, I don't care) or that he was a fascist without explaining why.

I wonder if it's just that the media was really good at mocking these people, or if they were really wingnuts and they have just been lucky in being somewhat right in the long run.

I think Obama believed most of what he campaigned for. But I believe the Office of the President changes people, and I'm sure there is a lot going on that we don't see. Something changed his mind. Not that I agree with his change in stance, but I suspect that's what happened.

> But I believe the Office of the President changes people

Looking at what some former presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind) say after they left, it seems that this change is not permanent. It's almost like moving into the White House makes folks automatons void of any previously held principles. And moving out makes them decent people again.

It could be due to some kind of garbage in garbage out. After all all the information he receives comes from the government stablishment. He doesn't have direct access to sourcess any more.

I think a big part of it is that presidents don't really think for themselves. They are essentially at the behest of their advisors and the heads of these various organizations. If the head of the NSA tells you that the program is constitutional and we have X, Y, Z safeguards in place to protect Americans, why would he not believe it? It's not like he can evaluate the implementation himself. I doubt he would even have time to if he wanted to dig into the gritty details.

The fact is, there is a machine that exists beyond any sitting president, and that machine is adept at getting its way. Convincing one person, who does not have any former experience in these matters, that your way is the right way, is probably the easiest part of their job.

I think Obama believed most of what he campaigned for.

Why do you believe this? Is it entirely due to the "secret information" theory, where the President is sat down his first day and told all the skary sekrit stuff?

I don't think it's necessarily all the stuff he's told but all the people he chose to surround himself with when he formed his cabinet.

If you're implying he's got a gun to his head, he should just step down and say "I can't do my job any longer".

Obama is not a disaster. He is a great product of a system called democracy, where people are taught to believe they are free and can make a difference by voting.

It was the media, although of course there were the usual "wingnuts" and "moonbats", there always are.

Just look at Jim Geraghty of the National Review and his "All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them." meme. In fact, you can find just mention of just about everything there was known before the 2008 election at that one mainstream establishment conservative publication.

What value can be placed on Obama's pledges? He promised transparency in 2008. He promised again in 2012. He failed to follow through. Why would anyone think he will follow through this time around?

"That promise I made a few years ago and then did the exact opposite? Would you believe me if I made that same promise again, this time with even less incentive to follow through on it?"

I don't see transparency in quotes in the article, also your title doesn't match the article's: "Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency"

Point taken and title updated.

Thanks, although I agree with the sentiment of the original title :)

Like he pledged to close Guantanamo, protect whistleblowers, and so on? He lies more than the Bushes or Clinton ever did.

I think at this point he's just a puppet of a fascist machine, and until it collapses, we're going to face more of the same -- an empire on its last legs.

Also, note how he put it: "the american people NEED to have confidence". Because WESAYSO.

I don't think anyone wants confidence. We want guarantees and actual oversight. We're simply going to get the oversight theatre that gives false confidence to people.

This is exactly right. I don't want to have to "trust" anyone that things won't be abused. I want a real system of checks and balances such that abuse cannot happen and when it does it will automatically be brought to light.

>The president also accused Russia of "backward" thinking, following its decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden, who disclosed details of the secretive surveillance programmes to media.

I like how it is in quotes.

It's in quotes to identify it as his explicit statement rather than a reporter's characterization of his statement. This is standard journalistic (and English) usage.

Yes economic interest apparently took over as prism scandal threatens to take us tech industry down the drain.(and of course 27 new programs and 14 new courts will be created to take care of current damage.)

Also what about all the hate for Russia and Putin? Any f$*#@king apologies or pledges on not doing it in the future? Or that was complimentary, on the W.House?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com