President Obama Proposes Reforms To Surveillance Programs
npr.org
npr.org
> Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing national security.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Data mining and data manipulation are the air superiority of the 21st century -- it's going to the form the bottom line of every major power in the world. They're going to bare their largest fangs and growl with impudence at anybody that gets in their way.
He says there are safeguards, but the most important -- whistleblowing and accountability -- are getting a backseat.
The NSA has vast swaths of information on everything and on everybody, and the related Federal agencies (Department of Treasury (IRS), Department of Justice (DEA)) can smell blood. Unless he puts very large walls and many beartraps around the NSA's data, we will be slaughtered.
They're recording everything passing through their part of the internet, and now they're in charge of guarding their recordings. They're doing a piss-poor job so far.
But I think you can make a convincing argument that the U.S. government has indeed taken an implicit antagonistic stance towards many underclasses (drug users, the mentally ill, poor people, etc.) after convincing the rest of us that such specific antagonism should be tolerable.
This is the real problem. If it happens gradually enough, the bastards can sell us anything.
Deleted comment
I don't seriously believe that these reforms would have been proposed without external pressure, and Snowden provided that pressure in a forum unlike Drake, who had done the right thing.
With that said I don't think Snowden is a "patriot". He may be anti-surveillance, which may extend benefit to the American people, but his actions are not consistent with someone who is focused more-or-less solely on benefit to the American people, but rather someone who is opposed to government in general and the NSA in particular.
For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home.
But Russia and the U.S. have real issues they need to work together on, which will have an impact on the world at large. That drama didn't help the American people either (and we'll see what happens with the crisis in Syria as well). But it did help make the American government look bad, along with Snowden personally.
Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the positive.
> Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home.
Well, a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?), and b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.
Perhaps, but only by the same logic under which supply-side and 'trickle-down' economics is expected to succeed.
> a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?)
Sure he could. Many "patriots" did things at risk to their liberty because they believed it was the right thing for their country.
He chooses not to because asylum is better for him personally. That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice.
> b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.
When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?
For instance, let's say that HN decided President Obama is guilty of treason to the American people, and actually convince Congress to impeach him. Under your idea the President would be able to flee to Russia due to the threat to his liberty, and Russia would be obligated to accept him due to the threat to his liberty. That is what makes no sense.
Seeking asylum in Russia is neither patriotic nor unpatriotic. It does not follow that Snowden is not a patriot.
> When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?
You are being deliberately obtuse.
> Seeking asylum in Russia is neither patriotic nor unpatriotic. It does not follow that Snowden is not a patriot.
Nor does it follow that Snowden is a patriot. Given that I had argued for other reasons that on the whole Snowden is not, I had assumed that this point was your attempt to show that Snowden is a patriot. If you're saying instead that the point is indeterminate then you should have just said so, as I'm sure we'll both agree his decision to seek asylum was a personal choice.
> You are being deliberately obtuse.
And you were being deliberately outlandish. But in any event, the most Snowden coverage I've seen mentioned on HN, by far, has been links from "theguardian.com", so I don't feel I was even obtuse.
I voted for Obama twice; and in 2008, when the race against McCain was tight, I spent many weekends in Reno and Northern NV, campaigning, pounding the pavement, going door-to-door in the heat.
And I will be cancelling my Democratic membership. I urge all of you to do so too (Democrat or Republican). It is clear that neither of the two parties are interested in our rights. Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi are war mongers; and Republicans are merely a shadow of their so-called ideals. Republicans are also to blame, because they go out of their way to push for such things. Look at the Republican braying after Benghazi; they will take even the slightest setback to go after Democrats as weak on terror. And the Democrats are more than happy to oblige by bringing in a police state.
Please: the only way to bring about change is to stop voting for either party, and to actively campaign against them. We are lucky: we have 15 months to go before the next election. Let's get some third-party candidates in the House!
If it's not clear by now that these two parties are two sides of the same coin, controlled by the same interests, and driven to the same goals, I don't know what will make it clear.
Such as voicing his concerns to a superior, getting his clearance revoked just because, and then ranting in a blog, just to have his accusations denied with weasel words by the administration? [EDIT] Or just dismissed in a press conference as paranoia from a lunatic?
>Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing national security.
How did Snowden sacrifice national security?
This would never have happened without Snowden, It's absurd to claim he is not a whistleblower. I have lost so much respect for this president in the last few months.
Hope and change? Where and when do we get those?
On the other side, they had legal rational for torture, and it did made the torture legal for some period of time - nobody was prosecuted for doing it, so de-facto it was legal at the time, despite later declarations.
Oversight and transparency are a big pile of nothing if all it means in practice is that government officials engaged in unjustifiable surveillance have to work in pairs to "oversee" each other. The government should not be engaged in mass surveillance. How about you identify a specific suspect and get a warrant, Mr. President.
> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people," Obama said.
"America" is not interested in spying on ordinary people, the trouble is the NSA seems quite keen on it.
> Obama said his administration and the NSA is only interested in preventing another terror attack.
> "We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that," Obama said.
For example, no interest in providing exculpatory evidence to those they falsely accused. That seems fair, right?
Pull the other one, Mr. President.
It's not just whether or not the President believes the programs are being abused now, it should be about whether or not they are ripe for abuse now or in the future (which they clearly are).
I expect to be down voted for my opinion, but what are fake internet points worth if you don't spend them on something you believe in.
If a person has lied to you once, you can be sure that the person will be capable of lying to you again.
The wSJ also has a report on this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732452250457900... As I've predicted before, even the mention of reform was met with swift condemnation from both junior and senior Republicans.
As a matter of pure realpolitik, I don't expect any significant progress on reform before fall of 2014, when the US has finished withdrawing military forces from Afghanistan. As C-in-C, the President has to pay as much attention to the safety of troops in the field as to the (often inchoate) concerns of the domestic electorate.
OK, snake oil is probably not recognizable as such for a politician …
It would be interesting to see whether the down vote resulted from English language nazis or Obama fanboys … ;)