Hacker News Reader

Comment by ganeumann | Hacker News Reader

An article on The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/206686-privacy-advocate...) says that the change was made at the behest of the Obama administration:

"[A]fter moving through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, where it saw some changes but retained the support of privacy advocates, last minute negotiations between House leadership and the Obama administration have left the bill with weakened language when it comes to banning mass surveillance, advocates say."

Disappointing on many levels.

View on HN

I would assume that by using "Obama administration" in this context it was meant to be purposefully vague. The Executive Branch is massive. This could be anyone from the Pentagon, CIA, DHS, to many others who just happen to eventually report to the President. Many of these organizations have the motivation to maintain their current legal powers.

According to the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gu...):

"Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop."

It could be possible that the President overruled his own policy review group. But I find it unlikely given his propensity for consensus.

Because we all know how the Tea Party-heavy House has done whatever Obama wanted

The House leadership loathes the "Tea Party" types with a burning passion, e.g. along with the rest of the Republican establishment has made it very clear they prefer a Democrat winning to a "Tea Party" type. And is ever ready to cut a deal with Obama; there's no surprise here, especially with how much power a House majority leadership team has.

This is a blatant lie. If you look at any actual survey data, the Tea Party is strictly a wing of the Republican party and it has been nothing but good for the political fortunes of the Republican party, which is extremely concerned with what the Tea Party wants. Without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have had the House all these years.

The two are not mutually exclusive (although if you can supply some evidence this extreme concern with what the "Tea Party" wants translating into substantive action by the national Republican Party I'm all ears).

If you're completely unaware of how the Republican establishment has been at war with its base LONG before the "Tea Party" (e.g. at least as far back as Goldwater in 1964), you need to read up on the relevant history before making such unproductive accusations.

Heck, how about brushing up on basic human psychology, since the concept of ingratitude (in this case, of the Republican establishment) would appear to be beyond your imagination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com