Hacker News Reader

Comment by yc1010 | Hacker News Reader

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure.

Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy

25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "Ich bin ein Ost-Berliner" :( The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm.

edit: Oh i see the cult of personality is still strong in this one, downvoted in under a minute.

View on HN

Let me explain a few things about the American government.

The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here.

First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direction of various governmental agencies. This true to an extent, but to a much more limited extent than is commonly believed. The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. Since President Obama has had a Congress whose primary tactic is to oppose everything the president wants, regardless of merits, this has severely limited his ability to get policies in place that he has otherwise wanted. This applies both to agencies like the FCC (the current chairman was Obama's third choice, IIRC; the other two were filibustered), as well as the judiciary.

Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military, the intelligence agencies, and the federal law enforcement agencies. (You could arguably include the Federal Reserve here, as well.) These are what Lofgren[1] calls the "Deep State". They are almost completely unaffected by elections, especially of Democratic presidents, and seek ever to increase their power and funding. Efforts to rein them in are rarely, if ever, successful.

Third, the current state of affairs re: intelligence gathering, etc., began in earnest with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.[2]

So while it may be convenient to blame Obama for the current state of government, it is overly simplistic. It has nothing to do with any cult of personality, but rather a simple recognition of the current realities of political power and the various players.

[1] http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress.

President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party [2]. To say that he hasn't gotten his way on the vast majority of cabinet appointments just isn't true.

Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. [3] All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve.

Your comment is typical of the current rhetoric surrounding attempting to "debunk" the thought that the President has substantial power. The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_State...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_State...

> But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President.

This is irrelevant, since the minority party can filibuster any nominations, and they have used done so extensively throughout Obama's tenure. In this regard, the party with the majority simply does not matter.

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them.

Again, I believe that this is an overly simplistic view of the Presidency. There are political realities around what Presidents can and cannot realistically do that contradict the "ultimate power" view of the Executive branch.

> All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve.

With Senate approval, and where no filibusters have been threatened or executed. And remember, there have been more filibusters during Obama's tenure than at any other time in history.

> The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with.

Not at all. I am disappointed in the American government itself. I have never voted for Obama, and am merely stating my thoughts as an amateur observer. But if there is ever going to be any positive change in limiting Federal power viz. the military, intelligence agencies, or LEO, then clarity of causality is important.

At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals.

EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.

as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word.

Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate

> as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word.

Not quite. The Democrats had 60 Senate seats for a very brief period before Scott Brown took over Ted Kennedy's seat when he passed away. The main ACA bill in the senate was passed with 60 votes the normal way. A second bill that was to modify that bill was passed with reconciliation as a way to get members of the House to drop their version of ACA, accept the currently passed Senate version, and then modify that to appease some of the concerns of various congresspeople.

> Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate

I so very much hate the 'going nuclear' talk. Filibuster breaks at 60 votes is a shit idea in the first place, plus changing it only in one case for appointments is hardly shaking up the political order at large. In fact, the reluctance to do it for all types of votes shows how conservative leadership for the dems were being.

>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word.

Untrue. Fillibuster rules were only changed in late 2013, after years of being unable to even get votes on nominees.

>>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process

No they passed the bill with 60 votes during the only time they actually had a supermajority. There were no rules changes needed or required. ACA was passed and signed before changes were made in the reconciliation process.

They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster.

Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...

> Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments.

Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways.

It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures.

1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...

There is no difference between refusing unanimous consent and a filibuster. Reid just changed the cloture requirement to 51 from 60.

Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history.

This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations.

To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill.

These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them.

No, he doesn't. The Constitution specifically limits the President's ability to make war and wage military campaigns. He has a great deal of authority but even the US' current adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are backed by Congress' approval through passed laws.

> At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively.

This displays a lack of insight around the Democratic party. Senator Lieberman was nominally a Democrat but he voted more often with the Republicans in the last few years of his career in the Senate. So-called "blue dog Democrats" are more conservative than you might think; that's why we got such grand bargains as the "Cornhusker Kickback" during the PPACA debates.

In reality, the President's party firmly controlled roughly 51-54 votes in the Senate with the remainder of the "majority" part of the coalition as a result of them simply not being as good a fit with the Republicans. That has arguably been one of the Democrats' greatest weaknesses: the Republican party has demonstrated its ability to move in lockstep even when some members disagree. The Democrats have not.

Absolutely none of this has any bearing on whether President Obama could call the NSA director into his office today and order him end all mass surveillance programs. Which he could, and his order would be obeyed. That he chooses not to is a practical political issue, not a legal one.

[EDIT: Well, he couldn't literally call anyone into the Oval Office today, since he's in Beijing, but a phone call would work just as well.]

Ordering an end to all mass surveillance programs would require Congressional approval.

Why?

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them.

No, he doesn't. The Congress has quite expansive (nearly plenary) power over the military (and to a lesser extent, the militia) expressly in the Constitution. The one limit on that power in the Constitution is that the Congress can't adopt a law giving the supreme command of the military (or the militia, when called into federal service) under the rules they adopt to anyone but the President -- that's what the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief means.

> And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party

They are reviled because they spend a lot of time demonizing them because this is politics.

>>> Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect.

Obama has been at work long and hard to make that the case. Since he has been unable to build any relationship with the Congress, and even holding majorities in both Houses his legislation and nominations had hard time going through, he has taken the decision to leverage his regulatory powers to circumvent the Congress as much as possible. It is not something that just happened - it is a deliberate policy which Obama chose. Of course, not him first - many presidents did the same, and some - like FDR - went a lot further than Obama ever did - but Obama is among those who believes in the Deep State and uses and intends to use it to the fullest extent possible. So if there is to be effort to rein them in, Obama is not your guy - he is the opposite of your guy. Of course, the blame does not lie solely or even primarily with Obama - it started long before him and undoubtedly won't end when he retires. But he is contributing as much as he is able to the raise of the power of the regulatory agencies and their ability to conduct policy completely independently of the Congress.

While I've suspected that the "deep state" as you and your source calls it are "behind the scenes", Obama did come out in support of the intelligence community after the Snowden leaks, so he certainly did not oppose them completely. [1]

While I'm happy Obama is supporting net neutrality, I don't find him blameless.

[1] You didn't explicitly say that Obama really desired to reign in this "deep state," just that any attempt to do so would be difficult. If you did not mean that, I apologize.

No, I did not mean that. And I certainly believe that there are actions that the President could take that would help to promote a more limited role for the intelligence agencies, etc. I do believe, however, that the ability for any President to limit the power of the government is limited both by Congressional action and by the government itself. No agency wants to see its powers reduced, and will oppose any measures which could affect them.

Basically, any president which seeks to limit the existing power of government institutions will run into institutional resistance.

The NSA spying program is authorized by executive order not statute.

It's a signature away from ending. And Obama can forward any issues to the DoJ. If he wanted to end the NSA spying program he could simply have Holder charge those involved.

Obama is always powerless whenever people want him to do something he doesn't want to do, but to summarily try, convict, and execute a US child is apparently within his power.

"First, it is commonly believed..."

And why do these common beliefs exist?

Because American exceptionalism is a core element of national identity, and includes the idea that all elements of American government are basically democratic. This believe is convenient for those in power who are not very accountable to the electorate and is a deeply held idea by voters in the United States. When deeply held ideas conflict with reality, beliefs will usually stay and reality is the one that is discarded.

> Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited.

Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.

Compared to most other parliamentary democracies, is not even comparable. In parliamentary democracies, political parties can almost never survive by completely stonewalling the opponent in power, as by nature of being a parliamentary democracy, opposition parties are forced to work together, or form alliances with one another, in order to function.

Totally wrong. In other parliamentary democracies the winning parties/coalitions get on a plate executive and legislative branches simultaneously and big ability to influence judiciary.

Sources: I live in one.

This was about president's powers, not what winning party/coalition in parliamentary elections gets. Parliamentary systems with active (but less powerful vs the US) presidents such as France, Finland, etc. (but re your tangent, minority governments happen and are common in some places. See eg. Denmark)

That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for debates in Congress. President pushed it, Congress approved. President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. Example Executive Order 13233 (signed by Bush, makes President an exception from Freedom Of Information Act)

"President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress."

This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution.

In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up.

Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress.

The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.

Whatever. You can call it anything you like : act, interpretation, change, results are the same. If President signs piece of paper that restricts your liberties, then he has power to change the law, and that power is substantial - that was my point.

I think you're way too easy on congress (and they will happily pass the buck for unpopular decisions to the president). They could have done more, but chose not to. This is not a case of the president "pushing" their agenda through, but of the president's agent coinciding with the agendas of congress.

> President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. The executive branch of government executes laws, it does not (and Constitutionally cannot) create them. Executive orders are valid to the extent that they direct actions within the executive branch within the laws binding that branch and apply only powers the President has under the Constitution and laws.

The practical distinction may vanish when the other branches do not effectively check the executive when it exceeds its Constitutional power, but that's not inherent in the President heading the Executive branch -- the same is equally true of excesses in other branches, though the unitary nature of the executive provides less of an intra-branch check on abuses by the President than exists for any actor in the legislative or judicial branches (though collective excesses, such as -- as a purely hypothetical example -- the Supreme Court intruding into Congress' Constitutional role in judging the propriety of Presidential electoral votes including the process by which they are assigned -- can still occur and be problematic if left unchecked by the other branches.)

Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more.

And I suspect the reason you're being downvoted in the first place is that the TC post is about net neutrality and not government spying. While the two are connected (they both involve the internet, after all) they're different topics. If we refuse net neutrality until we also disband the NSA then we'll just lose on two counts.

> Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more.

No, of course it doesn't.

And, no, there's nothing wrong with complaining about the downvotes as there' heck of a lot of knee-jerk downvoting happening on HN. Almost as much as righteous preaching about proper HN "etiquette", but not as damaging in the long run.

I can't speak for others, but personally I specifically and intentionally downvote any complaint about downvotes, even if I otherwise agree with the poster.

That sort of complaining lowers the tone of the discussion and adds nothing.

Plus 8 times out of 10, just wait a minute and you'll get voted back up.

HN FAQ: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Quoting the FAQ also makes for some boring reading.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but do you really think the surveillance state was created during his presidency? This type of thing has been going on... well, probably forever. It's gotten more sophisticated in the Internet age, but that started before Obama too.

It did not start with Obama and by all accounts it was not stopped, slowed or in any way diminished by him. I think the backlash is from people who thought he'd be different and embrace a different mindset than the one he apparently has. He was a constitutional law professor and the hope that he'd be different than what he is was quite a let down.

Compare the Bush-era level of surveillance intrusiveness with the Obama-era level.

You'll find that what Bush started, Obama has drastically developed, distributed, and expanded.

Under Bush we had increasing levels of surveillance which were undesirable, but the veneer that it was still all about terrorism could at least be believed. Now, we know it's targeted specifically at us for the purposes of exploitation and domination of us.

> Under Bush we had increasing levels of surveillance which were undesirable, but the veneer that it was still all about terrorism could at least be believed.

Not if you were paying attention to any of the players involved before 9/11. Or even after for that matter.

That 9/11 was used as a pretext for things the people involved wanted for other reasons and had been seeking for years (in some cases decades) without any connection to terrorism was pretty obvious. These were in some cases the very same people that were openly upset while serving in the Ford Administration against the legislative constraints that were placed in the wake of abuses by Nixon.

It was never believably about terrorism, it was always about restoring overwhelming executive power.

In the eyes of the public, I think that it was very much believably about terrorism-- people have internalized the false maxims that security must be sought, and that liberty must be traded to get security. This wasn't really a popular trope before the anti-terrorist propaganda came along.

I agree with you when you say that it was never about terrorism but rather increasing executive power, though. There certainly was a trend toward increased surveillance for many years before, but the entrance of surveillance into the new world-dominating media of the internet is a story in and of itself, I think.

How do you compare the two? Based on what information?

>the veneer that it was still all about terrorism could at least be believed. Now, we know it's targeted specifically at us for the purposes of exploitation and domination of us.

The great thing about hyperbole is that it rebuts itself.

Is it really hyperbole when we know via Snowden that one of the projects of the NSA is to infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt any/all dissenting groups?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intellige...

What about parallel construction, putatively started to help with terrorists but now usually used in drug investigations in order to sidestep civil rights safeguards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

It was legalized under Obama. Under Bush, it was criminal; now, it's institutional.

> It was legalized under Obama.

It was legalized (both retroactively, covering events that had occurred prior to the act, and prospectively by broadening the allowed surveillance under the law) through the FISA Amendment Act of 2008, signed by George W. Bush on July 10, 2008.

Its true that Obama signed the bill passed by Congress extending parts of the FISA Amendments Act that were scheduled to expire in 2012 for five additional years. But that just kept it legal, it didn't legalize it.

It wasn't created under him, but now is his opportunity to do something positive about it. His track record on the subject hasn't been good for the last 6 years; here's hoping the next 2 will prove substantially better.

It's not something that began under Obama. When CALEA passed, people like me were complaining that it would be abused. When The USAPATRIOT ACT passed, people like me were complaining that it would be abused. Now, that there is undeniable proof that they are being abused, the retort is that it's been going on for decades.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me.

I am an ideologue, not a partisan. I'll complain about it when a Democrat steps over the line just as quickly as I'll complain about it when a Republican steps over the line.

EO 12333

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/29/new-documents-...

I'm not going to ignore your opinion as a result of your not being American; I'd say that foreign perspective is very useful in such discussions.

I do however take issue with the ad hominem attack on the President. It's not necessary, nor constructive, to lay down a blanket criticism like "[he's] an utmost failure."

The "surveillance state" does exist, but it's a global phenomenon. In the US, at least, it's something that we're actively fighting, and the government is not shutting down dissenting opinions. The same cannot be said for countries like China, where the government's control depends heavily on the citizenry not questioning it.

You set a high bar.

In the US, at least, it's something that we're actively fighting

Are we really, thought? At least at any meaningful scale? A handful of geeks on HN, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter and Slashdot isn't much of a resistance. Do you perceive that people who care about this issue have mobilized in sufficient quantity and enthusiasm to do something meaningful, like influence election outcomes?

It's good that at least some of us care, but just chattering with each other here probably isn't going to accomplish much.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Classifying the internet as a utility is a huge step towards net neutrality. This is what we want.

however it is quite possible it will encumber providers and such with all sorts of new rules, forced compliance, etc.

Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements"

Maybe they will be brand it under some title like "Internet Bill of Rights" and watch as people don't read the fine print.

All I know is, if I waited for the regulated utility known as the phone company to have provided me with faster internet, let alone a good phone connection during a thunderstorm, it would never have happened without competition.

One thing that is guaranteed to occur, is that the US Government will regulate the Internet to a greater degree every year that goes by. It's what they do with all segments of the economy, and that regulation has been accelerating for decades. Tech had been largely spared, but the Feds have been increasingly pushing their nose into every area of tech the last decade.

What will ultimately happen, is the government will regulate the Internet so tightly, it will become extremely difficult, time consuming, and costly to create a start-up (while the technology cost will continue to fall). This process will not be fought by the existing tech giants, because they will think they benefit from it by limiting competition with artificial barriers. It's the exact same thing that has played out in every other major segment of the economy, and it's exactly what is about to happen to the Internet. These days will be viewed as the unregulated wild west, when you could spend $50 and create a start-up without hardly a concern.

Comcast and others are against Net neutrality. They want your $50 startup to have to pay for a "fast lane".

For comparison, the electricity company can't restrict your wattage just because you are a business.

> Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements"

We have that now, without net neutrality.

At the federal level more so than state/local.

The feds have had free access to everything for a long time, what you're likely to see after utility conversion is the local cops demanding access to all ebay/CL traffic for an entire city to track down stolen property fences or similar actions. Give me a list of everyone in my district who ever bought lockpicks or lockpicking stuff.

I don't think you are aware of the current situation. There is no competition among broadband ISPs. Each player has carved out its own exclusivity zone free of any competition. This is partly out of necessity of not having overlapping/redundant physical infrastructures, and partly the result of these companies buying out local and state officials. Common carrier regulations were established (as far back as ancient Rome) to counter this kind of situation. It basically states that because such monopolies are unavoidable, in order for the company to enjoy such privileged status it must be regulated as a public utility and impartial market player; and most importantly a common carrier cannot use its monopoly position to corner the market downstream (such as shutting out NetFlix in favor of Comcast's own streaming service).

Essentially, we cannot create more competition at the broadband utility level but we can prevent monopoly power from begetting more monopoly power. Common carrier is regulation purposed towards facilitating a free market.

While I agree that there could be such rules that accompany a reclassification of the internet as a utility, net neutrality is what so many people have been pushing for.

Yes there could be unwanted side-effects of such a classification, we have to cross that bridge when we get to it.

> this is just a bad joke

Would you prefer Obama to call for a closed internet?

You are confusing different things. Just because someone might be wrong with a lot of things doesn't mean he's not allowed to be right with something else.

As other's said: The world wide wrongdoing by the secret agencies is no invention of Obama. Not even an invention of the US. I'm German and even the BND did whatever it could to gain for it's purpose useful information. They did under governments of all kind of political orientation.

And then you're confusing things again. The downvotes most likely come from your indifferentiated opinion about net neutrality and spying activities. Not from your dislike of Obama.

> I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion)

Why did you post it?

It's entirely possible that the notions of surveillance (and the egregious examples of that which have come from the top-down in this country) and net neutrality can be evaluated independently of each other, particularly because they are dissonant concepts.

He calls for "Free and Open Internet"

An internet where all traffic is closely monitored, recorded and data-mined is not free and open in my books.

Actually it is free and open. It's not private, however.

The internet was never a private place and it will never be.

Edit: It's important that we don't loose the freedom and openness. That's what the discussion is all about. Not about the lack of privacy.

Sounds too free and open by your qualms

"Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy"

According to Snowden's documents, several mass collection programs shut down under his watch (including email header collection), and no new mass collection programs were added.

At least give him credit for doing one right thing, I think that's fair.

He waited six years to make this rather limp statement of obviousness. And he waited until he was a lame duck President, that just lost the Senate.

Meanwhile, in the passing of those six years the US has continued to fall further behind on fixed broadband speeds and ISP competitiveness.

Which especially makes it better that he finally has done it.

He deserves criticism and his motives deserve criticism, but I'm just happy that he decided to support it after all.

You're saying obama is responsible for everything - which is not as everything was there before him - and complain when he publicly asks to fix some of the most important issues... Then complain some more about some cult of personality and compare him as worst than the nazi regime.. Then complain about downvote.

Theres some interesting things to discuss regarding the validity of obamas actions but that doesnt seem to be the best way to start that debate ;)

> edit: Oh i see the cult of personality is still strong in this one, downvoted in under a minute.

Translated: "If you disagree with me, you're a stooge for the cult of personality."

What an effective way to make your position to be unassailable!

I am an American and I agree with your bad joke assessment. It's rather depressing to see my fellow citizens fall for these jokes over and over again, all the while losing their rights, even their right to privacy.

Agencies have been spying forever. From opening letters to eavesdroping phone calls. I'm not saying it's right, just that the agencies have not become worse with time.

However, I totally agree with you when you're concerned about the diminishing privacy. I think the advance of technology is the key factor for this. Agencies are as ruthless as always and use this new technologies.

Most people are totally fine to tell Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc. everything about their private lifes in exchange to ... distraction. Think of all the health shit ... they gonna make furtunes selling our data to the pharma and insurrance industry.

For the rest of the Western world, the Obama administration has been the worst thing to happen to a free and open internet in the past two decades.

I see all kinds of American apologists in this thread, but the fact is that regardless of what it inherited, this particular administration has of its own volition pursued an aggressive anti-freedom and anti-privacy agenda both on behalf of its own intelligence agencies, its tech industry and its copyright exploitation industry.

The fact that this president dares to call for a free and open internet disgusts me.

Complaining about downvotes? That's an automatic downvote.

> The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm.

Spoken like someone with little sense of historical perspective. Or understanding of the DDR.

http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/05/stasi-vs-the-u-s-nsa-back-to...

I'm not sure comparing the size of the filing cabinets of the Stasi and the NSA is particularly helpful in understanding the differences between those two organizations.

The only difference is that the Stasi didn't have the tech available to them that the NSA has.

I know we're not historicans here, but I'm German, so I am quite sensitive when it comes to the Stasi: Please be aware of the thousands of people who have been killed, tortured, inprisoned and repressed by the Stasi in the DDR. The Stasi took the freedom of a whole nation. They destroyed so many lives. You can compare the spying techniques but not the wrongdoing (not saying the NSA is free of any wrongdoing). It's another dimension, better, several dimensions.

You do know that the US has the largest prison population in the world...

It outdoes the DDR by a factor of two with regard to those they imprison, as well the DDR stopped executing anyone in 1987, as of last year the US still executes minors.

Well, plus the culture of informing on your fellow citizens at large scale (10-20% of German citizens were active informers...)

... or the German citizens killed by the Stasi...

Do you really think the only difference between the Stasi and the NSA is the technology available?

Absolutely. The mindsets of spy masters never changes, no matter the era or country.

Then how do you explain how the Stasi kidnapped and killed lots of German citizens, while the NSA has yet to do the like?

I can understand if you're saying you fear the NSA's power grab because of similarities with the Stasi. I have trouble believing that you think there is literally no difference between the Stasi and the current NSA, given their body of work has significant differences.

The NSA spies on far more people than the Stasi could have ever hoped to. The NSA is just the intel branch of a government that has killed and imprisoned more people than the East German government did.

Arguing about the niceties of barbaric practices is fruitless anyway, but we can argue about the size of the weapons wielded by the barbarians.

I'm in agreement that the NSA shares certain characteristics with the Stasi - spying on its own populace is one of them. I also get it if you don't differentiate between citizen/non-citizen in terms of targeting. Heck, I'm with you in regards to (most of) what I believe to be your position.

However, your tone and word choice, along with the hyperbole of your statements, serve to weaken your point.

The Stasi created a culture of fear in the populace of the nation they were supposed to protect. They used the citizenry against itself; fathers doubting children, wives were suspicious of neighbors.

German citizens and residents found sufficiently undesirable were imprisoned or executed by the Stasi.

While the US has committed some terrible acts abroad in the name of anti-terrorism, I still contend there is a significant difference between the current NSA and the Stasi.

It's similar to how I object when people equate the US internment of their Japanese residents with the Nazi Final Solution. Similarities, sure. Both awful, sure. But there is a difference between immorally and illegally imprisoning people based on race for a few years and trying to wipe an entire race from the face of the planet in a systematic and sick environment.

Anyone who conflates arguments like that sound like they're shouting with an agenda, and it only serves to weaken what would be, in a more measured tone, a strong argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com