President Obama Proposes Reforms To Surveillance Programs(npr.org)
npr.org
President Obama Proposes Reforms To Surveillance Programs
http://npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/09/210539942/live-blog-president-obamas-press-conference
18 comments
What's funny is that I think he's right in the first case and wrong in the second.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
You make no sense. He couldn't be seeking asylum over the risk to his liberty if he hadn't done something at risk to his liberty.
Nations don't approve asylum based only on risk to liberty of a person.
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.
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.
I'll admit that you managed to make even less sense there than in your previous comment, which is impressive.
> That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice.
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.
> When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?
You are being deliberately obtuse.
> > That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice.
> 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.
> 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.
No kidding. First he comes out defending it. Now it needs reform. Which is it? because if he is asking us to believe that they happened to be juuuusst about to reform it when Snowden leaked, then we're now entering the self-parody zone.
The fact that he's saying the word patriot is really significant.
I don't understand what you're getting at, here. Could you elaborate?
Pretty sure he's talking about how Republicans are always getting shafted for talking about things be "un-American" or "un-patriotic" to the point of insanity, coming up with things like the Patriot Act. And here's Obama, supposedly the candidate in favor of "change" using the exact same rhetoric.
Well sure, and I disagree with the President's statement, but I think him using the word patriot is mostly indicative of the fact that a reporter asked him if he thought Snowden was a patriot...
Obama has to say this stuff. Does he even believe it himself? Most people don't care as much as the HN crowd. Taking this stance is probably the best way to avoid a PR scandal with the masses. Which doesn't make it right, of course.
He can blow it out of his ass. Nothing they say has a grain of truth anymore, and nothing of value will be accomplished by his latest chest-thumping.
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.
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.
Following your own analogy, shouldn't the rise in air power have resulted in us all being bombed from the sky? ISTM that you're making a teleological argument which depends on the government having a fundamentally antagonistic stance towards the people, a position for which I feel proof is severely lacking.
You're not going to see proof of this position anytime soon, since explicit antagonism would be unpalatable to many people and would compromise the government's stance.
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.
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]
Your account appears to have been hellbanned for whatever this comment was, which has also apparently been deleted.
Yeah. It would have been valid if this was said publicly, that this was being done - that they knew reforms were needed and were in the process of the change.
Re: "Reforms" and "change"...it might be time to become a bit more cynical about what Obama means by these things. He was never going to reduce his power, or the government's power, voluntarily.
The reason Obama Administration is pissed at Snowden is not because he leaked so-called "secrets", but because he exposed the "man behind the curtain". That is to say: Obama is no different than any mainstream Republican would have been.
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!
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!
Man, I wish I could bonus upvote this. One vote just isn't enough.
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.
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.
For reference, the BEST solution to the two-party system is RANGE VOTING: http://rangevoting.org/ Don't waste your time trying to do anything against the two parties until we get that in place.
So don't do anything to unseat the two major parties until the two major parties pass a constitutional amendment making unseating them possible?
>I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden had legal means to bring his concerns to light.
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?
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?
Snowden improved national security by informing the American public about the activities of its most dangerous enemy.
He said that because most people are not technically literate or have enough time to understand exactly what Snowden did. Considering the way he is portrayed in mass media I would bet that many people think what he did was along the lines of releasing the secret passwords to our spy computers of which then Al Qaeda can access and disrupt our job in killing and detaining terrorists.
"Obama added that he was directing the Justice Department to make public the legal rational for the bulk collection of Americans' electronic data."
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.
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.
Exactly. The utter lack of commitment to principle (i.e.: defend whistleblowers) is absolutely disheartening. It's made worse by the mental gymnastics to claim that Snowden is not a whistleblower.
Hope and change? Where and when do we get those?
Hope and change? Where and when do we get those?
would making public the legal rational for an illegal thing make the thing legal?
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.
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.
What a sham. "Oversight and transparency" is not good enough. The government kicks you in the teeth and then lies about it, now they promise next time not to lie about it. Anyone else feel underwhelmed?
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?
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?
These actually sound like good measures. I'm not convinced they will be sufficient, however; in particular, many of Americans (myself included) are now highly skeptical that the government will actually be following its own rules instead of abusive, secret reinterpretations thereof. These reforms coupled with something that addresses that, I might accept (but don't hold me to that...).
Too little, too late.
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).
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).
Despite the disappointment that a lot of us felt over the accomplishments of Obama throughout his presidency, he really had plenty of chance to get out in front of this one. However, what we got instead was the perfect illustration of just how much of a politician's politican he really is, and how nothing that comes out of his mouth reflect anything other than whichever way the wind happens to be blowing today. I'm sorry Obama, but your greatest legacy will be nothing more than the illustration of just how impotent democracy is in the media age.
Just like when I see a CEO start taking away the free soda, I believe he saw this coming. With the amount of money, people, and secrecy put into these programs, eventual scandal was the only possible outcome. Now he has enough political capitol to change things, for better or worse.
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.
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.
I think it was Judge Judy who said it.
If a person has lied to you once, you can be sure that the person will be capable of lying to you again.
If a person has lied to you once, you can be sure that the person will be capable of lying to you again.
Goodness, that's hard to read. I don't think much of 'live blogging.'
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.
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.
If they're going to actually reform the surveillance programs they're going to have to declassify ALL of them first. otherwise this is just a propagandic, empty gesture.
Pure PR move. He will lose next elections anyway.
Snowden cannot be guilty of treason AND the program needs reform. Obama needs to choose one.
I, too, propose reforms to surveillance programs. My proposal will have about as much impact as his.
The cryptographic announcement to president Obama's announcement is snake oil.
OK, snake oil is probably not recognizable as such for a politician …
OK, snake oil is probably not recognizable as such for a politician …
Sorry for the typo, 'announcement' should of course be 'equivalent'.
It would be interesting to see whether the down vote resulted from English language nazis or Obama fanboys … ;)
It would be interesting to see whether the down vote resulted from English language nazis or Obama fanboys … ;)
As I listened to him speak today I realized that he may not understand the technology the NSA is using or how it could be surreptitiously abused. No man can be an expert in everything and his background as a law professor probably didn't include the necessary study. So he relies on the experts in his circle who are telling him what he is repeating to us; that no Americans are being spied on. Of course he believes all his people are honest and have the highest integrity so why shouldn't he believe them? It's not the first time and not the last the a President has been duped by his own people.
> 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.