Slashdot Mirror


Obama on Surveillance: "We Can and Must Be More Transparent"

Today President Obama held a press conference to address the situation surrounding the NSA's surveillance activities. (Here is the full transcript.) He announced four actions the administration is undertaking to restore the public's confidence in the intelligence community. Obama plans to work with Congress to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give greater weight to civil liberties, and to revisit section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is the section that allowed bulk collection of phone records. (Of course, "will work with Congress" is a vague term, and Congress isn't known for getting things done lately. Thus, it remains to be seen if anything substantive happens.) Obama is ordering the Dept. of Justice to make public their legal rationale for data collection, and there will be a new NSA official dedicated to transparency efforts. There will also be a new website for citizens to learn about transparency in intelligence agencies. Lastly, a group of outside experts will be convened to review the government's surveillance capabilities. Their job will include figuring out how to maintain the public's trust and prevent abuse, and to consider how the intelligence community's actions will affect foreign policy. In addition to these initiatives, President Obama made his position very clear about several different aspects of this controversy. While acknowledging that "we have significant capabilities," he said, "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people." He added that the people who have raised concerns about privacy and government overreach in a lawful manner are "patriots." This is in stark contrast to his view of leakers like Edward Snowden: "I don't think Mr. Snowden was a patriot." (For his part, Snowden says the recent shut down of encrypted email services is 'inspiring.') When asked about how his opinion of the surveillance programs have changed, he said his perception of them has not evolved since the story broke worldwide. "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs." Obama also endorsed finding technological solutions that will protect privacy regardless of what government agencies want to do.

537 comments

  1. Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nuff said.

    1. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I second that motion.

    2. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by killkillkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously. I don't want them to be transparent and tell me how they are collecting my communications. I want them to NOT COLLECT my communications without a warrant that has been issued upon just cause.

    3. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I second that motion.

      I second that EMOTION! seriously, passions are running hot on both sides... hopefully Obama's steps today will provide a "cooling off period" so we can step back and look at this from all angles.

    4. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That so stupid. Who cares if its illegal, its immoral. If it is legal, then we should change the law to make it illegal. Its not a freaking parking ticket that you're haggling about the interpretation of.

    5. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The problem is, Obama's idea of transparent is to attack Lavabit.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    6. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The problem is, Obama's idea of transparent is to attack Lavabit.

      In a such transparent way, that the owner of Lavabit is apparently not allowed to say what happened, either.

    7. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was clearly a case of "I'll say something that sounds reassuring, while waiting for this to blow over so we don't have to change anything."

      Having Congress look at it was a very funny joke, since they're in recess and useless anyway.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they wanted him to install backdoors so that lavabit wouldn't work like it claims(and attacks to be delivered upon access).

      for other kind of action they could just have bust in and take the servers. maybe they were going to take over it by spooks so he had to officially close it down before that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't necessarily illegal. It is definitely unconstitutional, which trumps legality in this country. Or should trump it, anyway.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh transparency was never about government, it was always about you.

    11. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I second that EMOTION! seriously, passions are running hot on both sides... hopefully Obama's steps today will provide a "cooling off period" so we can step back and look at this from all angles.

      I have some news for you :

      No cooling off period or further looks are necessary.

      The facts are in and the government has been illegally SPYING ON ITS OWN CITIZENS.

    12. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm so fucking sick of this president. On every issue that has opposition he always takes the stance of "Oh you don't agree with me, I must not be explaining it well enough" NO SHITHEAD WE DISAGREE! We understand you just fine, we just don't want your stupid bullshit policies.

    13. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not interested in 'ordinary people'. this goes without saying, if you are ordinary then you're not doing anything 'extra-ordinary' which would get their attention. maybe running for a political office will get you flagged, or being in the wrong business... where is the line drawn?

    14. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously. Posse Comitatus was intended to prevent secret intelligence from undermining democracy.

      We cannot know what we do not know. So long as there are secrets, we only have the credibility of the intelligence agency that they are respecting the honor systems placed on them. Their credibility is lost. They lied. They lied about lying. They lied when caught lying. They got caught lying every step of the way. They have permanently lost my trust, and these intelligence agencies will represent banana republic, Nazi SS, KGB level chilling effects on our democracy as long as they continue exist.

      An "Under new management" sign isn't good enough for a financial brand caught in the act of running a ponzi scheme. Why would "more transparency" be acceptable for an intelligence agency thumbing their nose at Posse Comitatus?

    15. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first step...restore the first amendment rights of external entities that are forced into compliance.

      I can, perhaps, buy that specific information about forced compliance can be sealed for a limited time period. However organizations and individuals who have been forced to comply with FISA requests should always be able to speak openly about a) the aggregate number and nature of requests (i.e. We received 10 requests to monitor all emails sent to an account) and b) specific requests after a specified quiet period (for the past month, we've been monitoring abc@def.com). Also, FISA requests should be challengeable in Federal court (the hearings can be closed) so that they can be appealed to the supreme court, if desired. The Judiciary branch needs to have full oversight over whether the spying efforts are legitimate.

      Once we get that, then we should push for intelligence agencies needing to get the courts involved prior to sending the FISA request...compliance should be entirely optional without a court-issued warrant.

    16. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      And don't forget about the Benghazi and Fort Hood witnesses. All gagged.

    17. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it isn't necessarily illegal. It is definitely unconstitutional, which trumps legality in this country.

      The Constitution is part of the law (the highest part), so any action which is unconstitutional is also illegal, regardless of any lesser laws claiming otherwise. Constitutionality doesn't trump legality, it trumps unconstitutional laws.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    18. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      I agree as well. The world doesn't need transparency; it needs the US to freakin' STOP THE BULLSHIT.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    19. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      They'll make changes. Next time, they'll hide it better.
      Don't expect them to end the programs. they need something to tell them who to send the IRS after. If they can't find their opponents by scanning their emails, how do you expect them to target their enemies?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    20. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      There is no such a thing as unconstitutional constitutional laws.

    21. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No! Not "Nuff said"! Never will there be enough said, until it's shut down. As far as I can tell, this whole fucking "Snowden telling on the NSA" shit is all to do with testing the people, I think Snowden is in on the whole scheme, and that's why he's hiding in Russia. Not from the American government, but from the people. And you know what? The people are testing out very well, in the government's eyes. Know why? Because they're all still logging as much data daily as they were prior to "the discovery". They're watching slashdot, watching for your witty comments, your hard-core ideas of freedom, your knowledge on the constitution, your funny comments.... all that shit. It's a very big concern for them because as long as the incoming data isn't shrinking, then it means that the people are still so fucking busy commenting on things on the internet, that they're not out in reality, speaking with each other in private, building a group consciousness that will leave their spy-tool obsolete. The only tool that the people have in their box is silence. That'd scare the shit outta the NSA.

      "Whataya hear Dave?"
      "...shit man, nothing!"
      "Whataya mean, 'nothing'?"
      "There's nothing coming in the tubes, bro, it's silence"
      "Oh fuck. Well, do we still have jobs?"

      But it's a pipe dream, no one will dare stop the interweb brows/data-exchange, they're simply perplexed by a supposition of a world without it. It's like my generation was with the telephone. And you know what I think? I think that if we all did go silent, then the government would do what other countries have done, outlaw "religious gatherings" ruling them as demonstrators, or worse, terrorists.

      Youguys can go fight the good fight, in the good way all you want (if you don't know how to protest against your government, then you're probably one of the people that's going to go ask the government "How do we properly protest this, kind and respectful sir?" And they'll tell you the same thing they did to the Wall St protesters, "Stand behind the line, and await further orders..." Fucking Americans, REVOLT SHITHEADS, REVOLT!!!! I fucking DARE you! You won't, because you're to scared. Bunch of pussies, you deserve whatever becomes of you, and your silly kindergarten way of life.

    22. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by NotBorg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without transparency, how will you know when the bullshit stops?

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    23. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Without transparency, how will you know when the bullshit stops?

      When the NSA datacenters are burning, and those responsible hang from the gallows.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually what amazed me about the President's statement is that there currently is no adversary in FISA court hearing. Little fucking wonder it so rarely rejects requests. It sounds like a judge, a few DoJ lawyers and someone from the NSA (or whoever) have a nice little chat at the end of which the judge brings out the rubber stamp and away they go to spy on whomever they like.

      It just stuns me that a FISA court can even rationally be called a court. It's sort of like calling a block of wood with no wheels a car.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Snowden, and Assange, and Putin for protecting Snowden from getting a rendition ride, hell I could go on all day just listing the underhanded shit that has been started, continued, or in many cases expanded under this administration.

      I do hope this serves as a valuable lesson though, that just because somebody has a D after their name don't mean shit, actions speak louder than words and the only ones who can say Obama is left wing anymore is Fox news. To the rest of us it should be obvious by now what we are seeing is Dubya's third and fourth terms, just wrapped in touchy feely rhetoric to fool the masses and redirect heat away from the POTUS. His slogan should be "Yes we can (but I won't)".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re: Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always a messaging problem, but never the message.

    27. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just spying, but using this for ordinary crime. Kind of like how RICO was once upon a time ONLY for going after the mafia and then it morphed into something that applies to even the kid selling joints on the street corner.

      The selling point for this program, to get people to accept it, is "terrorism", but it's already being used unconstitutionally by law enforcement for ordinary shit:

      DEA Parallel Construction: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

      IRS Parallel Construction: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/reuters-irs-manual-instructed-agents-how-to-hide-secret-deansa-intel/

      Fruit of the poisonous tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

      This will just expand to the point that unconstitutionally gathered evidence will be used for everything down to parking tickets, like RICO metastasized into what it is now.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    28. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been on slashdot, fark, reddit... and no matter how one-sided an argument is there is always a small group of enablers or sympathizers for the other side.

      Cop beats a black guy to death for running away -- I guess shouldn't have run from a cop; guilty or not...
      Someone accidentally cuts off a car; other driver road rages and smashes out the windows -- should be a more careful driver then...
      Child dies from malnutrition because vegan mother only eats fruit or some shit -- it is a personal decision how to raise your kids...

      I scanned through the comments... and holy shit. There is no one defending this obvious cover-up. I don't know if public opinion is changing, people are fed up with government abuse... but Snowden might just be that piece of straw.

    29. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I don't want them to be transparent and tell me how they are collecting my communications. I want them to NOT COLLECT my communications without a warrant that has been issued upon just cause.

      Amen - I'll acknowledge I'm a registered Democrat and have generally supported the "party line" when pulling the levers but at this point, I really feel "the fish is rotten from the neck down" and there is no way I can support voting for anyone from either of our two primary parties because they have not representing what they are supposed to do - represent the views of citizens.

      Anything short of prosecuting those who violated our 4th amendment rights will not do - shame on Obama and all those we've elected to represent us.

      I know I'll either vote across the board for non-incumbents/non-demo/repubicans or it's time to move :-).

    30. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by phrackthat · · Score: 2

      I want them to NOT COLLECT my communications without a warrant that has been issued upon just cause.

      Better yet, I want them to get a warrant on the basis that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, which is the standard required by the fourth amendment. Whether a cause is 'just' is in the eye of the beholder and in the Obama administration that largely involves crying "terrorism" or "drugs" and waiving their hands.

    31. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      That isn't what JesseMcDonald said. The Constitution is the highest law. In fact, the only "law" the POTUS is specifically and directly called on in his oath of office to defend and protect. Other laws, which violate the Constitution (we've had plenty of examples of violations of the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth -- and even possibly the third amendments) are fundamentally *illegal*, even if they are enacted.

    32. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You've never had a pinewood derby car, I see.

    33. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by quarterbuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems the government has released the legal justification http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html?hp&_r=0
      It seems to go like this
      1) The Feds cannot legally read letters
      2) But metadata collection is legal (by court rulings). i.e. addresses written on the letters are fair game. Stretching this, collecting metadata on calls (from:, to:, length of call) is legal. Same goes for emails.
      3) But it is not easy to just collect metadata. So they collect everything and then delete all the "data" and retain metadata on every call.
      4) Some section of patriot act authorized collection of even more data using secret courts when the issue is foreign intelligence or terrorism related. So as long as calls are cross border or of a suspected terrorist, the calls can be recorded.The broad scope of the warrant ensures this. Since there is a secret warrant backing this, this is not unconstitutional.
      5) The same secret warrant covers compelling private businesses to monitor users etc.
      6) Once intelligence is collected, FBI etc. can be notified.

      Not saying all this is right, but this is my reading of the document.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    34. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling the President a shithead is an act of terrorism. Expect to be renditioned at any moment.

    35. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by gmuslera · · Score: 0

      Also is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed most countries, including US. Is not the only thing that US blatlanty ignored, like i.e. torture (doing it in Guantanamo don't take out that was done following US official orders), and everything that is doing with drones in the Pakistan and other countries.

    36. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The broad scope of the warrant ensures this. Since there is a secret warrant backing this, this is not unconstitutional.

      There are constitutional requirements for warrants which cannot be met so long as the warrant is secret:

      no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

      "A broad scope" would mean that the warrant fails fails to particularly describe the place to be searched. Moreover, the requirement for probable cause is fundamentally impossible to reconcile with the idea of a "secret warrant". Before a warrant can be issued, they have to establish probable cause, and produce the evidence ("Oath or affirmation") supporting it, at which point the warrant is no longer a secret.

      Then there is the fact that legislating anything secret, or for that matter prohibiting any form of communication on any topic, runs squarely and obviously afoul of the First Amendment right to free speech... Whatever specific kinds of speech the authors may or may not have had in mind, there are no exceptions whatsoever in the text; not for national security, or copyright, or anything else.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    37. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congress could very easily put a stop to this. Congress does not want to. The majority and minority leadership in both houses know what is going on -- this stuff is not news to them. The laws are working as intended. What they all fear is explaining their own position to the American people. Our Congresscritters are going to keep their mouth shut and let the heat fall on the president.

    38. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by citizenr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He will do it just after shutting down Gitmo.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    39. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What "steps?" Pretty words and a website?

      He gave us lots of "pretty words" in 2008, and then completely ignored them and instead fell right in line with every one of his predecessors; doing the same obnoxious shit with his own special brand of "fuck you" on top.

      A website? Really? Have you already forgotten how well the last one worked out?

      How is coming down on the NSA for a lack of transparency going to work? He threw that word around back then, too. Obviously, he's using a different definition than the rest of us.

      He hasn't taken any steps, much less the one that would actually count: the removal and indictment of the sons of bitches who actually committed these crimes.

      He's spinning this.

    40. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by quarterbuck · · Score: 2

      Indeed one would think so. But the document cites at least a few court cases where the items "relevant" to the investigation are interpreted very broadly.(Ctrl-F for Oppenheimer or Shell in the document to get the case info)

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    41. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the communists are left wing? The East Germans had surveillance down to an artform. If anything, these revelations show Obama to be a bit too left wing.

      But yeah, meet the new boss same as the old boss.

    42. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by mpeskett · · Score: 2

      Left wing vs right wing doesn't apply. Either one can be authoritarian.

    43. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I agree as well. The world doesn't need transparency; it needs the US to freakin' STOP THE BULLSHIT.

      When "they" say transparent, "they" mean not being seen by those most hurt.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    44. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Without transparency, how will you know when the bullshit stops?

      When the NSA datacenters are burning, and those responsible hang from the gallows.

      That's alot of rope and kerosene.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    45. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of when I found the neighbor boy was taking cheap drugs and his response was "Cheap, I paid a lot of money for them"

      IT would seem that some people are so bamboozled by the hope of something in the way someone speaks that they completely miss the actions happening in front of them. Con artists use this trick to pick pockets and perform all sorts of other dishonest feats. I hope no one ever says politicians aren't crooks. They sure seem to act like them.

    46. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The US signing something does not bind us to it. Most countries are the same on this too. It takes ratification in order to bind countries to an international agreement. In the US, the senate must concur with the president and the agreement must not violate the US constitution. In other countries, their government bodies approve of it and it becomes ratified and binding.

      You will find there are tons of international agreements out there that countries including but not limited to the USA have signed but are not legally bound to because they have failed to ratify them within their own government. The UN or international law does not trump the sovereignty of a nation unless they voluntarily allow it to.

    47. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      You aren't supposed to need an adversary, the court itself is supposed to be one. This isn't like someone accusing you of something and it going on your record. It is supposed to be an agent saying we have this clear and articulate evidence that suggest we need the ability to spy on X because they are involved in, about to be involved in, or was involved in, the commission of a crime/terrorism/whatever national security interest are.

      The judge isn't supposed to rubber stamp them, they are supposed to determine if probable cause was constitutionally met and then approve or deny accordingly. The problem with the FISC or Foreign Intelligence Secret Court is two fold. They are supposed to ensure Americans aren't targeted or that probable cause was constitutionally met if they are and they are targeted in concerns of national security.

      In short, the courts are supposed to be stopping these things or ensuring they are constitutional before the point an adversary is ever needed. If they are not doing so, then there is a serious problem. A court simply saying "ok, here is your warrant" does not mean it is constitutional if they are not doing their jobs properly.

    48. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded "insightful"?

      Since when has antithesis to big government been associated with a (D)?

      Seriously, grow up.

    49. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do hope this serves as a valuable lesson though, that just because somebody has a D after their name don't mean shit, actions speak louder than words and the only ones who can say Obama is left wing anymore is Fox news. To the rest of us it should be obvious by now what we are seeing is Dubya's third and fourth terms

      Nice attempt at defending the "D" name, by separating Obama from them and instead associating him with the Republican Bushies. perhaps the message is that D's are worse because their feet aren't held to the fire nearly as much as the "R". Bush farts, and there are millions marching around the world.. Obama strips away the Constitution, and puts big brother into overdrive. and not a peep until fairly recently. Even still nowhere near the concern publicly there needs to be. I used to think it was people didn't want to admit they've been fooled. Now I'm concerned people are far more stupid than just pride. It's almost a religious denial of anything negative which scares the S*hit out of me.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    50. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow, I had no idea. I just Googled the Fort Hood thing. What a bunch of bullshit.

      http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080813-666892-shawn-manning-says-fort-hood-not-workplace-violence.htm

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    51. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with transparency how do we know they are really being transparent?

    52. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are just speculating about what the FEDs wanted and I'm speculating that they probably hit him with something like a National security letter with a gag order preventing him from legally discussing it. If Obama was running the transparent presidency that he promised, there would be no gag orders and we wouldn't need to speculate.

    53. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    54. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by bogjobber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clinton almost got impeached because he got his dick sucked by someone he wasn't married to, so please save the partisan nonsense. People weren't marching against Bush because they dislike Republicans. They were marching because he was starting a war under false pretenses.

      Even then, for the most part the majority of our country were just fine with everything Bush was doing until it become apparent to even the most ill-informed that the Iraq war was a giant clusterfuck. Pretty similar to the Obama presidency, really. For the most part the President gets to do whatever the hell he wants for four or five years before the general public catches on. It has nothing to do with their political affiliation.

    55. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current administration is certainly transparent about one thing, how they will treat any and all whistle blowers. Whistle blowers will be sexually humiliated and abused, threatened with death and subject to life imprisonment. Any country that harbours US whistle blowers will be threatened with economic warfare and other political targeted 'sanctions'.

      So the Uncle Tom Obama administration is pretty transparent when it comes down to it and all the slick, teleprompter bullshit about anything they publicly say is, typical corporate marketing, about the way they want to be seen rather than the ugly reality of who they are.

      Apart from the whistle blower stuff, that they are truly transparent about, as a US whistle blower you have no rights under law, you have no right to life and the government will do everything in it's power to completely and utterly fuck you up. A big ol thumbs up to the choom gang coward for that defence of the US constitution.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    56. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh huh.

      http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4073041&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=44524755

      There's also this;

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OHk3c2L6Rck

      The world is full of drones and sheep whose eyes glaze over whenever you use the terms 'Obama', 'white Republicans', 'public security' etc. etc. etc.

      Why, it's almost as if you all have been trained to think this way, critical thinking and logic have no place in discussions about national security.

      And it's all over this place especially like stink to shit and you people know it.

      Even your own comment - and I am not trying to attack you, just to point out a truth, is glossing over the truth.

      If you support the people behind this activity then you are defending the cover up - and worse. And the level of support here for these people is inarguable. Just scan the comments for supporters of Obama and that's really all you need to know, and you know it's true without even looking. But it goes deeper than that, all of this isn't personally about Obama and Obama isn't where it all ends. There is genuine hate here for Republicans, this is a given. And yet there is a real lack of understanding what Republican really means.

      Take Obamacare - oh the evil white Republicans want to take healthcare away from the nice poor people who just want to care for their children right? That is the belief and I would guess 80% of the shitbirds who frequent this blog would agree with this statement.

      But what have the Republicans in fact done to stop Obamacare? What is the truth?

      They have pushed bills through the house to repeal Obamacare like 40 or 50 times right? Now pay attention; the Republican party controls the house, all funding must originate in the house, the Republicans could, if they wanted to, stop funding Obamacare and this would be a real powerful move for many reasons. They have continued to avoid this move or anything even close to it repeatedly, all the while speaking against the ACA and talking tough.

      They are lying, they want the votes to remain in office, but they in truth want to keep Obamacare because they like it. Obamacare is a power grab, it's nothing to do with healthcare and that is something that can be discussed another time, but the facts are that the Republicans want to keep it because they want the power also.

      This is my point; supporting the platform of the left, that is Obama, Schumer, Reid, on down the line, equals supporting the cover up. As does supporting Republicanse, if you do not understand what the Republicans are doing, supporting them is the same thing as ensuring that a Democrat majority is elected to office and that in the big picture the Democrat platform is what wins at the end of the day. The socialist has rigged this game most effectively and wether or not you believe it or understand it they are winning.

      Be realistic - let's just assume the state is completely ignoring the Constitution for the moment, they like the power it gives them over the people (and the peoples money), let's be honest now; do you really think that asking them to stop is ever going to work?

      And that's the key right there. If asking them politely won't work... what will?

      Thanks so much you shitbirds for voting for this shit, you, collectively, along with enough of your like minded brothers in all of the 57 states, have brought this on yourselves! And the lone voice here in this post asks the question 'There is no one defending this obvious cover-up'! It's astounding to me the dichotomy that you have to believe to get to this point.

      We are fucked.

    57. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "Obama plans to work with Congress to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give greater weight to civil liberties"

      He doesn't need to do this. All Obama has to do to fix this is to phone of the director of the NSA and order him to stop collecting X, Y and Z. If he has been at all concerned about any aspect, he has the unfettered power to tell the guy "don't do this".

      Obama is talking under the false premise that the NSA is obliged to gather all data that it thinks is legal to gather.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    58. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      "hey were marching because he was starting a war under false pretenses. "

      This is a very common meme, but is factually incorrect. Yes, it is unpopular to explain, but please let me do so. Firstly there were many reasons to get Saddam, from the mass murders of his own people to the sponsoring of terrorism worldwide (even if not the 9/11 attackers) to fulfilling the mandate for the invasion of of Iraq obtained from Congress by Bill Clinton (and therefore, representing the will of the Democrats and supposedly the will of the American people). You knew these facts, didn't you?

      Now consider the details of the WMD meme. Firstly, there appear to have been WMDs in Iraq but before the invasion they were reportedly shipped to Syria (where they are being used by both sides today). Now, it is clear that when Bush authorized the invasion he actually thought he would find the WMDs. And when they weren't found he did not order them to be faked despite the enormous pressure to do do - showing that he was wrong, but honest about what he intended to find. Think about this a bit before you dismiss it.

      Criticise Bush all you want, but the memes that he lied and the only reason to invade Iraq was WMD that didn't exist are simply not true. Hate Bush if you must, but at least stop spreading false memes. Thanks.

    59. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Clinton almost got impeached because he lied about it. I don't think getting your dick sucked by an intern is in itself an impeachable offense.

    60. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1

      Have you considered Obama might not have any choice?, he could be being blackmailed, the NSA might have something on him from all the spying.

      This is the #1 reason why universal spying is just plain wrong, it corrupts absolutely.

    61. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the only ones who can say Obama is left wing anymore is Fox news. To the rest of us it should be obvious by now what we are seeing is Dubya's third and fourth terms...

      Man, is your political spectrum upside-down. Obama IS left wing. He looks so much like "Dubya" because he was a left-leaning RINO, like McCain. The Democrats went hard left a long time ago, and the GOP establishment is pretty leftist right now, too. I had hope for the tea-party influence, but it got co-opted/corrupted.

      Left = more government control & diminished freedom
      Right = more freedom, less government interference

      Anything else in your political spectrum is an intentional misdirection or obfuscation.

    62. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuff said.

      "OK, you win, we shut it down."

      Now, go ahead and tell me how you're gonna prove they're telling the truth.

      All of this transparency nonsense is utter bullshit. This is our classified intelligence community we're talking about here. They don't have to tell you a fucking thing, and can always legally play the Glomar card when asked.

      It's hardly a "Nuff said" situation.

    63. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hail to the Chief spin doctor. It's a very sad state when we can not believe the 'most transparent government' he and his rich union cronies can own. Call them Red, Blue, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Independent . not one elected Washington official has proven worth their expense and hubris... vote all of them out and start fresh and repeat until the government is what we want. Slashdotters need to get out of the closet and add positively to the 33% voter turn out (as in New York)... we need some brainpower and fresh thinking to improve our country. Get engaged or get run over by the 33%...

    64. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Not the same as getting your dick sucked. Although if it was, I'd probably be perjuring myself right now.

    65. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a good summary of the legal rationale.

      The part I don't understand is how these blanket, 90-day-renewable warrants can be legitimately called "warrants" at all. Warrants are supposed to be temporary, very specific, narrow exceptions to a person's rights that are granted to policing agencies in the pursuit of a criminal investigation. They are granted because there's enough evidence on a suspect. A warrant says "Yes, you can infringe on this person's ordinary rights, because you have provided sufficient evidence to the court to demonstrate that this person is a suspect in a crime." There has to be a good reason, and the application of the warrant has to be limited. It can't be "and now you can defy any rights this person may have". It's strictly "these rights excepted for this purpose". And although warrants are routinely sealed so that an investigation is not spoiled, they do have an expiry date, and are kept secret only temporarily. Why? Because the oversight of the court's granting of warrants is only ensured if the people eventually get to see the justification. The people through their elected representatives are the ones making sure the courts are not signing warrants for no good reason.

      So, how in the hell can an effectively perpetual "give me everything" and forever-secret court order constitute a legitimate warrant? How can a judge approve these things in good conscience? The construction of the thing is effectively saying everybody's normal rights can be infringed at all times, en masse. Not only suspects. Everybody. It's like a blanket exception saying "these normal rights don't apply anymore".

      The FISA court hasn't written a warrant. They can call it that, but it's not. They've simply written a new fiat law: that nobody, whether a suspect or not, has any right to privacy protections under the constitution anymore.

      The hypothesis that if they don't actually look at everybody's data, but just store it all and then select suspect's data from it, is a pretty bold and questionable legal theory. I'd argue that the infringement of everybody's rights had already occurred at the collection stage. You've already sifted through all their personal papers and effects and made copies of it all, just in case you might need them for a criminal investigation in the future. Even if you put it away and carefully don't look at it because that person isn't (yet) a suspect, you've still broken the law.

      The worse problem is the way that even if you think this legal rationale is dubious, the government has done everything in its power to obstruct consideration of it in the courts. That's kind of like saying "Here's our (shakey) legal theory. Oh, and BTW, we'll do everything we possibly can to prevent it being properly tested in court."

    66. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't necessarily illegal. It is definitely unconstitutional, which trumps legality in this country. Or should trump it, anyway.

      If something is unconstitutional, it is also illegal, since the Constitution is the supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    67. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton almost got impeached because he got his dick sucked by someone he wasn't married to, so please save the partisan nonsense.

      Please stop spreading this bullshit. Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. He got impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob during his testimony while he was under oath . IOW, he committed perjury. Was the whole investigation a Republican ploy to mire the administration up in so much legal muck that it would unable to effectively push through any of its policy goals for the term? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that Clinton, when he was to be held accountable on the witness stand for his actions as President, chose to lie about it and therefore violated the law and his oath of office. That's the reason he was impeached, not for getting his dicked sucked in White House.

    68. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but no. Clintons impeachment wasn't because of getting his dick sucked. It was because he lied about it under oath. The fact he was questioned about it under oath is fine to argue about on if it should have happened. But the impeachment was because he committed the crime of lying under oath and getting caught. Had he told the truth, then there would have been no impeachment hearings.

    69. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with the comments so far. I mean seriously when has this administration been "transparent" about anything? Oh we are shutting down Gitmo, uh didn't happen. Oh we are bring our troops home, uh yeah what years ago? And we're just suppose to believe them now? Why? And yes shut it down, it's illegal. And it's not the fact that I dont have anything to hide, its the fact my life suppose to be my life, private. And you keep telling me how wonderful you are but you keep doing really rotten stuff. Transparent............pfffttt!!!

      --
      I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
    70. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by IndieVoter · · Score: 1

      So, How IS that Hopy Changy thing going? Didn't think so. But, you at least you still have the FREE t shirt

    71. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already is being used for parking tickets. Automated license plate scanners are now, today, being used to map out not just who's been parked 5 minutes longer than their punch slip, but to correlate the movements of citizens around the cities/counties they live in. Local law enforment, if asked, will of course tell you that *they* don't use the data for that purpose, but the vast majority of their info is now housed at national security "fusion" centers.

    72. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A secret court, with secret warrants, and secret evidence, and secret proceedings, is not a court at all. You may call it a court, everyone may agree it looks like a court, but in fact it is not a court. There is no law without light.

    73. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton was in fact impeached. He was later acquitted, but remains one of two US presidents to be impeached.

    74. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush got away with a LOT more stuff than nearly any president in the history of the US. There are huge lists of evidence he could very easily be charged and convicted with. He and Cheney can't even travel to certain countries because they are wanted for WAR CRIMES.

      I'm not defending Obama in any way, I'm just trying to get all the Bush and Reagan worshippers on the same track as the rest of us. You have to be able to see the wrongdoings of your chosen side or you're just a partisan hack, and not helpful in even the slightest bit except to empower the government by spreading misinformation about reality. The fact that SO MUCH evidence exists that you so casually ignore quite frankly scares the shit out of me.

    75. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Wow...way to fail at reading, congrats. My POINT which seems to have been missed by you entirely is it DOES NOT MATTER what a party supposedly says it is for, be that D or R, but what they actually do when they are in power.

      And I'm sorry but you are full of shit when it comes to being held to the fire, Clinton was nearly impeached, Obama has had fast & furious, Benghazi, Rev Wright, and talking to a former member of the Weathermen and that is just off the top of my head. The simple fact is if they were REALLY held to the fire Bush and Obama would have probably been brought up on war crimes, Bush for sure, while I'm not sure if Obama would qualify for it or just impeachment for ignoring his oath to uphold the constitution.

      But I find the irony moist and delicious that you are defending Bush and ripping Obama when they are practically the same person, or did you forget that Bush passed the biggest boost social programs had seen in ages with the prescription drug coverage? And I don't know what you are smoking but its obvious just from the evidence that was have seen so far that except for Fast & Furious Obama has been following Bush and the right wing's playbook, from passing Romneycare (written by The Heritage Foundation which is a VERY right wing thinktank) to drone strikes to domestic spying he is only following the same playbook that Bush used.

      Perhaps you ought to watch this video made during the Bush years and see how much of it still applies today? The fact is the liberals and conservatives were BOTH run out of their respective parties ages ago, with fiscal conservatives kicked to the curb in favor of bible thumpers and neocons under Ronnie Raygun and progressive liberals kicked in favor of big money interests lik Hollywood studios and Wall Street. What you get today isn't even coke VS pepsi, its coke in a tall bottle VS a more squat bottle, in every way that matters they are the same party.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    76. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Court cases contrary to the Bill of Rights are irrelevant.

      To be a judge, an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights is required. A ruling contrary to the Bill of Rights is a violation of that oath. Any judge, or group of judges, even Supreme Court Justices (who also are required to swear such an oath), is immediately disqualified from holding any position of public trust or responsibility as a result of such a ruling.

      Furthermore, any such ruling represents unethical practice of law. Creating contradictions in the legal system creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals. A fundamental right arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people) is the right to ethical practice of law and the right to ethical government. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible. Hence, no contradictions allowed in the legal system, and thus no broad scope warrants.

      James Madison worded the 9th and 10th Amendments the way he did because he knew perfectly well that sooner or later government would try to infringe fundamental rights that were not explicitly stated. These amendments make part of the highest law of the land any fundamental rights the people assert as being reserved to them or retained by them, such as the right to privacy and the right to not be spied upon by one's government (both of which are certainly reasonable rights under a wide variety of circumstances). Even rights reasonably asserted by individuals fall under this protection, i.e. it does not require action the full body of the people for such a right to come into existence. Every judge and law enforcement officer swears an oath to recognize this, on an individual and personal basis, when they swear their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. If they don't like this, they are free to seek jobs in another country. Nobody is forcing these people to be part of the government of a free people, there are always dictatorships and organized crime groups looking to hire people without scruples.

      By definition, "retained by the people" means "retained by the people", which is not at all the same thing as "steal-able by some (or any) entity within the government". Such rights can not be taken away by ANY part of government, at ANY level.

      Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing the authority retained by the people as a result the 9th and 10th Amendments (for reasons that have been previously discussed on this forum and need not be repeated here). Hence, any statement to the contrary by a legal professional while engaged in the practice of law can be presumed to represent unethical conduct: freedom of speech does not necessarily apply to legal professionals engaged in the practice of law.

      This conflict of interest is actually one of the major obstacles to reform of the US legal system, another point that has been discussed numerous times on this forum.

      Swearing an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights is also a pre-requisite for being authorized to engage in the practice of law, and hence any legal professional taking an action, while engaged in the practice of law, that refuses to recognize these rights, in a situation where a reasonable person would suppose they are applicable, is in violation of that oath and no longer authorized to practice law. Precedents created by such people are rendered null and void as a result of their oath-breaking.

      The equivalent of the Nuremberg Precedent can be asserted as arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is not just military officers who are required to refuse to obey laws that call for them to infringe fundamental rights (German law required military officers to obey the orders of their superiors, without the exceptions necessary to protect fundamental rights, creating an individual and personal responsibility to recognize the limits of such laws is the essence of Nuremberg),

    77. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In the US, no matter what philosophical ideology you wish to follow, congress is charged with creating courts under the supreme court and they can essentially call anything they want a court and it will be a court. Unfortunately, they can call a kid riding his bicycle down the road a court if they feel like it and it will be a court.

    78. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Jyms · · Score: 1

      He received the 2009 Nobel Peace prize, so clearly he will do no evil and you must just not be understanding him correctly.

    79. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The facts are in and the government has been illegally SPYING ON ITS OWN CITIZENS.

      I think you emphasized the wrong words. The government has been ILLEGALLY spying on its own citizens. Spying on its own citizens is okay, that's called law enforcement, as long as there is DUE PROCESS. Due process means a warrant, based on a sworn affidavit ("Oath or affirmation") by a law enforcement agent and then reviewed and approved by an impartial judge, which can later be reviewed by the defendant and fought against if believed to be invalid. The problem here is that ALL of those conditions are absent. Apparently, when these guys swear to uphold the constitution, you'd think they would have read it, but they must have fallen asleep before they got to those pesky amendments.

    80. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Firstly there were many reasons to get Saddam, from the mass murders of his own people

      Happened long before we invaded, and there are lots of bad guys we tolerate or do business with. That's not a good reason. Even worse, lots of people have died as a result of the invasion.

      to the sponsoring of terrorism worldwide (even if not the 9/11 attackers)

      No different than Syria or Iran, and we weren't going to invade them. Not a good reason.

      to fulfilling the mandate for the invasion of of Iraq obtained from Congress by Bill Clinton

      There was no mandate for the United States to invade Iraq by Bill Clinton. You are referring to the Iraq Liberation Act, which was "An Act To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq," which specified assistance to opposition organizations. It explicitly says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as providedin section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

      Firstly, there appear to have been WMDs in Iraq but before the invasion they were reportedly shipped to Syria (where they are being used by both sides today).

      I've never heard this. I remember reports about this being a possible scenario that could happen. What actually occurred is that once we got into the country, overturned it, and debriefed people, we learned there was no WMD to begin with.

      Criticise Bush all you want, but the memes that he lied and the only reason to invade Iraq was WMD that didn't exist are simply not true.

      There were plenty of lies. He just pinned them on the CIA and washed his hands of it. The Powell report to the United Nations, "Curveball", the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake. They wanted war, and they got it, using whatever flimsy evidence was available.

    81. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      What they all fear is explaining their own position to the American people. Our Congresscritters are going to keep their mouth shut and let the heat fall on the president.

      That's not true. They've already spoken out in support of it.

    82. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no adversary before the court when a cop requests a traditional search warrant either...

    83. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      So tell me. How do you really feel?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    84. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Slight correction. Bill Clinton did get impeached and it was over perjury and obstruction of justice not for having his dick sucked.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    85. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Without transparency, how will you know when the bullshit stops?

      When the NSA datacenters are burning, and those responsible hang from the gallows.

      That's alot of rope and kerosene.

      Perhaps, but it's also "shovel-ready."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    86. Re:Better idea, shut it down - it's illegal.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I've been on slashdot, fark, reddit... and no matter how one-sided an argument is there is always a small group of enablers or sympathizers for the other side.

      Cop beats a black guy to death for running away -- I guess shouldn't have run from a cop; guilty or not...
      Someone accidentally cuts off a car; other driver road rages and smashes out the windows -- should be a more careful driver then...
      Child dies from malnutrition because vegan mother only eats fruit or some shit -- it is a personal decision how to raise your kids...

      I scanned through the comments... and holy shit. There is no one defending this obvious cover-up. I don't know if public opinion is changing, people are fed up with government abuse... but Snowden might just be that piece of straw.

      Try Yahoo! News; I often tell people, if you want to lose all faith in humanity that's the place to do it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. We Can and Must Be More Transparent by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that we all know he's actually talking about the PEOPLE being made more transparent, NOT the Government.

    1. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Mitreya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that we all know he's actually talking about the PEOPLE being made more transparent, NOT the Government.

      Either that, or he's operating on different definition of transparency. The secret kind of transparency.

      Just like "imminent" threat means "any/vague" threat according to the drone memo.

    2. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      That's not what he was saying, he was talking about the government. But this is a case where actions do speak louder than words.

    3. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Less than 48 hours ago with Jay Leno he said, and repeated: "We don't have a domestic spying program."

      Today he admits that some spying is taking place, but they are "not interested in spying on ordinary people", and the domestic spying program has safeguards to help keep it from being abused.

      That is quite a backstep.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    4. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Transparency? I care more about the fact that they seem to be violating the constitution; whether or not that's done transparently is utterly irrelevant to me.

      The TSA's flagrant disregard of the constitution and people's rights is plainly visible to everyone, and yet I still feel that their actions are wrong. Transparency is simply not the main problem.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Less than 48 hours ago with Jay Leno he said, and repeated: "We don't have a domestic spying program."

      The program is still classified, so it does not exist. Just like drones bombing several countries do not really exist.

      and the domestic spying program has safeguards to help keep it from being abused.

      It looks like Snowden was the only safeguard NSA had.

    6. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I thought their safeguard against the program being abused was to creatively redefine the term "abuse".

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then he should have been public in support of provisions to make sure the data collects could not be used for any reason other than fighting terrorism. OF COURSE, HE WON'T DO THAT.

    8. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And remember that their definition of "ordinary people" is people who are further than three degrees of separation from someone they think is a terrorist. So, for example, you go to a doctor who also had a guy named Ahmed as a patient, and Ahmed had a buddy who got involved in terrorism, congratulations, you (and your doctor) are now being spied on.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by jerpyro · · Score: 0

      This just in: Obama is a politician. More at 11.

    10. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: that's no excuse.

      We have settled for substandard leaders for far too long, merely because they're not that other guy.

      My Constitutional rights are not up for debate. There will be no compromise.

    11. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

    12. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by intermodal · · Score: 1

      This isn't about admitting things. It's about the government's extremely extended definition of "truth". And it's been going on for decades. The lies have simply piled so high that they can't even keep their story straight, just like the old quote goes.

      "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." ~Sir Walter Scott

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    13. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, listen to his speech. It only counts as abuse if you can see the abuse happening. As long as it's secret it "doesn't count". Refreshing honesty, in a backhanded sort of way. (I guess that must be why the government puts black hoods on the heads of those it tortures. )

    14. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the same interview, he also said, "The odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately".

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are interested in spying on "ordinary people", because they want to determine which of those people appear to be terrorists, and attempt to prevent terror attacks. That's the entire (and evil) goal of this retarded mess.

    16. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by istartedi · · Score: 3, Funny

      The program is still classified, so it does not exist.

      At first glance I thought you meant to imply that the government was denying the existence of the Tonight Show. In our current climate, that's a realistic possibility.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    17. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that is indeed a very creative redefinition of abuse. It adds a qualifier that does not belong.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    18. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's talking about ignoring the law and the US constitution. Whereas before he would try to hide it, he now realizes there are no consequences from it and he can now be entirely open about the fact that he's doing it.

    19. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no...he means the Drones need to be transparent...you know, like Wonder Woman's airplane.

    20. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of transparency where "you have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it".

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    21. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      Ordinary people: Undocumented immigrants who have not yet entered out country.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    22. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion it's either this, or this is just another in a long string of lies from the President. "Close Gitmo" has turned into adding more prisoners for torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H enhanced interrogation. Ending wars in the Middle East turned into him selecting who to kill with drones instead of more direct military actions, and increased mercenary and black ops by the CIA. Denying the desire for the indefinite detention of US citizens clause in the 2011NDAA turned in to him having it appealed 2 times by his attorneys until it got into a court that rubber stamped it for him. Him trying to fix the economy turned into "obama phones", massive welfare increases with money we don't have, and expanding NAFTA to the Pacific rim in secrecy. Obviously this could become a few thousand page essay on his blatant lies, so I'll stop.

      Obama has done little in regards to using varying definitions. He has just flat out lied over and over.

    23. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is not a very good comparison in reality but people fall for it. A much better comparison statistic is that you have a higher chance of dying from accidentally drinking a household cleaner than you do from dying from by terrorist. When you put it in those terms, people start to get how badly they have been duped.

    24. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Transparency? I care more about the fact that they seem to be violating the constitution; whether or not that's done transparently is utterly irrelevant to me.

      Yeah, the way I read this is that we'll have more raids and seizures with 1% less interception. That's more transparent, for sure.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    25. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obama is plenty transparent. You can see right through him.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The spying program is supposed to spy on foreigners and Americans who talk to them. The "F" in the FISC and FISA stands for "Foreign". If you call someone in Pakistan, they're allowed to spy on you. But they are collecting everyone's phone call metadata. Is that spying? According to the US Supreme Court, no. Commonsense? Uh, probably.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    27. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Seumas · · Score: 2

      He ran on "we are going to be the most transparent administration in history" and then proceeded to be one of the most corrupt, opaque, anti-Constitutional administrations, ever (despite him being a Constitutional lawyer - go figure).

      One would hope all the naive idiots who ran around like children at Christmas believing that they were going to change the world campaigning and voting for him would learn from this and become better and more demanding citizens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen and neither will the old-guard become less party-affiliated and more principle-oriented.

      This is an endless cycle that will go on.

    28. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The Jay Leno thing was so fucking scripted, it was painful to even watch. Of course, who expected anything different? Leno is the most milquetoast, inoffensive, script-following lapdog on the planet.

    29. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jay Leno is such a tool. Why don't he just stop today? He just seems to be a bigger dbag by the hour. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfqGFRZ1ek

    30. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's interesting.

      How about a law that says any information gathered from the NSA data dumps can only be used on terrorist and national security law enforcement and any disclosure of information for any other purpose will be a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment unless it can be proven that other law enforcement agencies colluded to gain access to the information then 10 years imprisonment for all involved.

    31. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by lolococo · · Score: 1

      He's talking about transparency, but mostly he's hoping for invisibility.

    32. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by doom · · Score: 1

      Except that we all know he's actually talking about the PEOPLE being made more transparent, NOT the Government.

      Oh, I don't know, I would say Obama is seeming increasingly transparent.

    33. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. So basically it's OK for them to continue to fuck us as long as they film it and put it on a web site. Transparency.

    34. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "drones", you mean aircraft which are remotely controlled by humans. Does it really matter where the human sits?

      Be angry and upset if you like, but throwing out buzzwords like drone only serves to evoke an emotional response from people who wrongly interpret it as autonomous robotic killing machines.

    35. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The program is still classified, so it does not exist.

      At first glance I thought you meant to imply that the government was denying the existence of the Tonight Show. In our current climate, that's a realistic possibility.

      Why do you think they are getting rid of Leno?

    36. Re:We Can and Must Be More Transparent by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they are getting rid of Leno?

      Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity,. aka Hanlon's razor. In this case, I think there are a few things going on with NBC execs that aren't deep, political, or malicious. First, they don't want to repeat the Letterman process. This is the process by which NBC incubates from SNL, to late night, to 11 PM, to... a rival. In general, NBC has a problem in that they incubate too many young comics for some reason. Inevitably, those comics go to other networks. They could just acknowledge that and market fresh talent to other networks; but they apparently don't see that as an opportunity. Maybe it just didn't occur to them, or it did and they ran the numbers and didn't like it.

      Speaking of NBC execs running numbers, that might explain why they're going to move the whole night lineup to New York. I think that sucks. There will be no West Coast perspective anymore. If it weren't for Johnny making fun of it, I never would have known Barstow existed. They'll create an opportunity for some other smart network to do an LA-based talk show in the late hours, and rue the day they moved everything to NYC if that takes their viewers.

      They dissed the whole West Coast for no good reason. Wankers.

      Anyway, malice is unlikely. These are TV execs, known more for stupidity and short-sightedness than anything else.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  3. By "we" I mean you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    "The ruling class will pretend to be transparent though. Ummm, hey, look, here's some Khardshian TV show crap, forget I said anything."

  4. Experts by Bolloney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Lastly, a group of outside experts will be convened to review the government's surveillance capabilities. Their job will include figuring out how to maintain the public's trust... " So they're hiring a PR firm?

    1. Re:Experts by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So they're hiring a PR firm?

      Likely, yes.

      I don't believe a single thing about this is going to change, they're just trying to manage the message and sell it to us.

      But given how many public statements about this have been contradicted within a week or two by other facts, I fully expect this to be more of the same -- "Honestly, we're not doing it. OK, maybe we're doing it, but we're doing it under strict control. OK, maybe we're doing other things that we don't want to admit to. Hey look, a pony".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Experts by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      I nominate Edward Snowden to head the group. He's about as far 'outside' as one can get right now.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Experts by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I lol'ed.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Experts by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      "Lastly, a group of outside experts will be convened to review the government's surveillance capabilities. Their job will include figuring out how to maintain the public's trust... "

      So they're hiring a PR firm?

      An "outside" PR firm. In other words, paying off some lobbyist with a huge contract.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    5. Re:Experts by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Perfect! When it looks like there's credible opposition, it's a tried an true tactic to give them a cushy job. You could even set him up in Hawaii with a hot pole-dancing girl... um... nevermind.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re: Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, Snowden just went from hero to superhero in my book.

    7. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew Princess Cadence was complicit!

    8. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like the perfect topic for one of those White House petitions! Please do! Not an USian or I'd do it myself...

    9. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is a USian. That's a made up word because of pedantic imbeciles. The word you are looking for is American. And no, the continents are north and south American so shorting them to just American on that basis defies logic and simply confuses things unnecessarily with a long and proven term American- meaning someone from the USA.

    10. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how the solution to failure in government (to serve the people) is to justify more spending. That's a clue as to what the ultimate goal is (i.e. not security).

  5. Secret Courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the secret courts are open to public review and observation there might be more transparency and trust. Till then it's just smoke and mirror talk.

    1. Re: Secret Courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So true. Speech can never close a credibility gap. What can a proven liar possibly say to convince you he's being honest?

      In that situation it's best to remain silent. Anything they say is further evidence of their deceitful nature.

  6. Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    BULL SHIT.

  7. I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    at all.

    1. Re:I don't believe it by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Well, you only form the [NSFW] 73% majority.
      As long as the richer 27% still have faith, you're beat.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Hope and Change by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    was replaced by Fear and Lies on January 20, 2009. Anyone who thinks anything Obama says (or does) will result in your privacy being respected and warrantless surveillance ended is delusional.

    1. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who voted for Romney were warned things would get worse, now look what you caused !

    2. Re:Hope and Change by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Anyone who thinks anything Obama says (or does) will result in your privacy being respected and warrantless surveillance ended is delusional.

      Ah, if only there were some other branches of the government that were tasked with supervising and controlling the executive branch. Too bad we don't have any.

    3. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please please please could someone tell me just what you believe is being done with this information?
      Sure, I can accept the premise that the governemnt is lying about what they can do, what they are doing, and why.
      But I'm trying and failing to think of something bad being done with it that would still be secret.

      What do my fellow Slashdotters think is happening with the data gathered by these surveillance programs?
      Who do you think is being harmed, and how?

    4. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was replaced by Fear and Lies on January 20, 2009. Anyone who thinks anything Obama says (or does) will result in your privacy being respected and warrantless surveillance ended is delusional.

      GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....

    5. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Setting up a one world government is not going to be easy especially when trying to tie the hands of your adversaries with 'lawyerspeak' and forgetting along the way that the will of the people is the heart of the matter.

    6. Re:Hope and Change by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Obama promised to repeal it. And then he turned out to be a closet conservative republican with a tan.

    7. Re: Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it harm you if I videotaped you having sex with your wife? Breach of privacy is a harm in and of itself. It's the whole point of the 4th amendment.

    8. Re:Hope and Change by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      So, after the first act of molestation, anything goes? How about an even-handed review of both of these knuckleheads?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:Hope and Change by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who thinks anything Obama says (or does) will result in your privacy being respected and warrantless surveillance ended is delusional.

      Ah, if only there were some other branches of the government that were tasked with supervising and controlling the executive branch. Too bad we don't have any.

      Yea, well, perhaps if "Checks and Balances" hadn't been replaced with "Collusion and Mutual Back-Scratching..."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Hope and Change by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please please please could someone tell me just what you believe is being done with this information?

      It's a standard tactic in modern tyrannies. If you know everything about your subjects, then you have much more power over them. That comes both from the raw information, such as the weaknesses and associations of your subjects, and the fear inspired in them by that knowledge.

      But I'm trying and failing to think of something bad being done with it that would still be secret.

      Well, what would a Gestapo or KGB do with such information? You having any luck thinking now?

    11. Re: Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you guys and the government are just talking past each other.
      Obama has no idea why ordinary people would be worried about their data being stored and ignored forever.
      I'm not sure I understand it myself.

    12. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame me. I voted for Kodoss.

    13. Re:Hope and Change by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      was replaced by Fear and Lies on January 20, 2009. Anyone who thinks anything Obama says (or does) will result in your privacy being respected and warrantless surveillance ended is delusional.

      GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....

      GW Bush has not been in charge for some time now, nor did he campaign on the platform of "Hope and Change."

      Your objection, while idiotic and counter-productive, has been noted, and summarily dismissed as misdirection. Piss off, Great Divider.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Hope and Change by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....

      and obama got elected because he promised change, change by closing down shit like that, gitmo etc. he didn't do shit. that's what replacing by fear and lies is. in all practicality he could just have left everything on autopilot and it seems he has. THAT IS NOT CHANGE! THAT IS BULLSHIT!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Hope and Change by JohnG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      False. Bush's Patriot act expired in 2011. Obama signed the extension. Anything that happens under the Patriot act now is Obama's fault, not Bush's. If it is company policy to beat employees who do wrong, and a new boss takes over and keeps beating people who do wrong, do you blame the old boss, or the new boss when the new boss beats you?

    16. Re:Hope and Change by khallow · · Score: 1

      GW Bush signed the patriot act

      So everything is just fine because Boosh did it first? Who else agrees with that?

    17. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think is being harmed, and how?

      That's a seecret. Need to know only. Your papers, please.

    18. Re: Hope and Change by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they can harass anyone they want at any point in the future. If any corrupt person (and there are many and will be many) manages to get into the government, suddenly you have a problem on your hands. Surely you're not so naive as to trust the government? History gives you no reason to do such a silly thing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Republicans have more of a history of abuse of children than Democrats.

      Thanks for showing me how fun it is to make shit up!

    20. Re:Hope and Change by bobbutts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Further, it can be argued that there were more compelling reasons for Bush to sign it in the aftermath of 9/11 vs. relatively tranquil 2011. I criticized Bush at the time, and sadly I feel Obama deserves even greater criticism.

    21. Re:Hope and Change by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your own statement refutes its own point by illustrating how doggedly following party lines blinds you to the abuses of the ruling class.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to concentrate your efforts on discrediting the "other side" while the people with money and power continue to amass both at the expense of the rest of us. Aside from minor differences on how to tax you, and how to spend that money, both parties are pretty much two sides of the same coin. Most of the programs in question right now were started under the Bush administration and expanded by the Obama administration. Honestly, I think the last administration who remotely gave a shit about "the people" they derive their authority to govern from and supposedly serve was the Carter administration. This country has been going to hell in a hand basket since the Regan years, and everyone is happy to look the other way as long as they are not directly affected. Well guess what, most americans are directly affected by this and still seem to not really care. The outrage over what the NSA, DEA and other executive branch agencies have been doing will quickly pass after some bullshit placation from the president to be more "transparent". With the start of the new programming season, any meaningful interest will all but disappear. Enjoy living in a country where the government can detain you for as long as they want as long as you're a terrorist, and whey they have the capability to "associate" you with one based on their surveillance capabilities. Government made a mistake? Good luck getting your life back from the secret courts you may or may not be tried in...

    23. Re:Hope and Change by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Further, it can be argued that there were more compelling reasons for Bush to sign it in the aftermath of 9/11 vs. relatively tranquil 2011.

      I disagree. I feel that sacrificing fundamental freedoms for security is wrong no matter the environment.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    24. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably if the white guy had won instead of the black guy, then all this would have been more "honest."

    25. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think is being harmed, and how?

      The US Constitution and the American people are being harmed.

      If you are too stupid to have already grasped that you deserve no more of
      my time which would be required to write a detailed explanation.

    26. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama believes he is the arbiter of all that is just and right in the world. Thus, he expects no transparency of himself and the institutions he relies on, because they are by definition righteous.

    27. Re:Hope and Change by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Evidently you think that most corporate presidents and other high ranking employees are democrats? Or were you unaware that corporations essentially control the government now?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    28. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is everyone thinks about this as individuals. "Why do they care if I talk to my grandma every tuesday for an hour" "Who cares if I eat hamburgers on mondays"

      They don't understand the concept of and power behind big data. Do you really think Facebook and Google spend billions developing software for you to use for free out of the goodness of their hearts? Hell no they use it to study patterns and manipulate and control the population en mass.

      The Gerrymandering and campaign marketing potential alone makes these programs worth it for the big political parties to ensure they stay in power.

    29. Re:Hope and Change by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Even without the skin-color-related bullshit in your post, it's still wrong.

      Here's a Gallup poll on whether people approve of the NSA spying:

      There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.

    30. Re:Hope and Change by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "I don't know what corporate executives personal preferences are but I know that majority of the worst behaving corporations (wall street, media, entertainment) disproportionately donate to Democratic party."

      They don't need to donate to the Republican party. The Republicans are already doing everything in their power to hand the country over to them. Think McFly! Think!

      "And no I'm not aware that corporations "control the government" except to the extent that excessive regulation of the industry naturally invites corruption among government officials."

      You could have stopped the sentence at the word aware. i.e. "I'm not aware"

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    31. Re:Hope and Change by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      And Obama promised to repeal it. And then he turned out to be just the other side of the same damn coin.

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    32. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that while the media is controlled by the Government for propaganda, polls like this are absolutely useless don't you? In addition, you do realize that the US is a Republic which must be bound by the Constitution and not mob mentality right?

      The propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^media channels use this same propaganda to keep you living in a delusion. Grats on being a sucker!

    33. Re:Hope and Change by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I recall that band (and Simpsons episode). Interestingly, Kodos was also in Star Trek (Conscience of the King).

    34. Re:Hope and Change by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Humans will tend to agree with those they identify with, and especially with groups they *chose*. In this case, I suspect that a large number of people simply agree with the program because they voted for Obama. Not consciously, but nevertheless.

    35. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Checks and Balances" has been replaced with Cheques and Bank Balances.
      (I know checks is American spelling for Cheques.)

    36. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read this:

      http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

      And think about what this means for any newly forming political movements that challenge the status quo.

    37. Re:Hope and Change by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Please please please could someone tell me just what you believe is being done with this information?
      Sure, I can accept the premise that the governemnt is lying about what they can do, what they are doing, and why.
      But I'm trying and failing to think of something bad being done with it that would still be secret.

      What do my fellow Slashdotters think is happening with the data gathered by these surveillance programs?
      Who do you think is being harmed, and how?

      I'm sorry. That information is classified.

    38. Re: Hope and Change by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ignored by who? till when? There are up to 5 millon people with access to that data, a lot of them belonging to for-profit companies, any of them can use that information for whatever they want. Blackmailing, stealing intellectual property (even before gets published/patented/whatever), using it out of context to put you in jail, or just sharing your hot conversation for fun, or as tools for political prosecutions are just a few of the possible consequences.

      Remember that what you say today could stay forever in the net, and that happens too with private and apparently anonymous communications in the NSA world. They could use what they intercept today as evidence for the new defined crimes of tomorrow (and as they are weaponizing internet, all you did there could be end being a crime, including posting something as anonymous that could be seen as offensive in 10 years)

    39. Re:Hope and Change by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Also had as mission to protect whisteblowers in 2009. But Obama and Bush were more or less puppets of the people in real charge of the things, not sure how much back this goes. Anyway, people elected and reelected Bush, and elected and reelected Obama, even being evident what were their real platforms (at least, for the reelection in both cases). No matter which of the 2 main parties you picked, you are still choosing which hammer want to hit you (and everyone else) in the head

    40. Re:Hope and Change by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no one is claiming poll numbers like this indicate wisdom. But they do contradict the original poster's nonsense.

      And if a lot more Republicans are getting this right, they should get credit for it. When you guess right on a test, you get credit. There's no way to know how many are right for the wrong reasons and how many are just right. But Republicans did a lot better than Democrats.

      A smart opponent of spying would take support where he can get it.

    41. Re:Hope and Change by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Good point.
      At this point I'm sick of both. Do over please.

    42. Re:Hope and Change by notanalien_justgreen · · Score: 1

      It was of course wrong, but at least one could understand their rational back in 2001, even if you disagree (which most of us here do). People were scared and were willing to give up freedoms for reassurance. Terrible choice, but you can at least make sense of it. In 2011 people weren't scared (hasn't been a terrorist attack in quite some time in the US), so the logic is much fuzzier.

    43. Re: Hope and Change by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Okay Mr. Shill. I'll bite. It used to be that you only had to worry about getting arrested for saying the wrong thing if you spoke in public. If you post on your facebook page that you want to murder children and then say, "just kidding" nowadays you go to prison for a long time. It is pretty much understood that if you are at home joking around with your friends you can say literally anything without worrying about going to prison for it. Due to the NSA any form of communication that is not in meatspace is the equivalent of making a statement to the police. So it's a kind of chilling effect and that is just one of the problems with this sort of universal surveillance.

      It isn't difficult to think of more. Like the fact that there is a 100% chance that that NSA info has already been abused. We just don't know about it. If I had access to that data I would abuse it too. It's just human nature.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    44. Re: Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you post on your facebook page that you want to murder children and then say, "just kidding" nowadays you go to prison for a long time.

      Citation needed.
      Freedom of speech hasn't gone anywhere.

    45. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "challenge the status quo" do you mean "pose a credible threat to violently overthrow the government"?
      If not, I'm going to ignore your comment.

    46. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was replaced by Fear and Lies on January 20, 2009. (snip)

      No, that would have been on 9/12/2001, if not a day earlier than that.

      As to the topmost post: Mr. President, too fucking late. Yourself, and the NSA, is tarnished beyond redemption. This is your Watergate. So quit, already.

    47. Re: Hope and Change by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/11/day-six-facebook-teen-jail.html

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml

      Before you argue that that is not "protected" speech let me remind you of the point I was making about being allowed unrestricted freedom of speech in your own home joking around with your friends. The NSA is making nearly all forms of communication fullly public to be put under the microscope by law enforcement agencies looking for something to bust you on.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    48. Re:Hope and Change by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It's the freaking US Government here. It is not what is being done, it is what can be done. They have already used offices under the government to go after people for political speech (IRS is recent), they can do anything they want and as long as they target individual threats, there is nothing you can do about it yourself.

      Even if nothing nefarious is being done with the collection of this information, the problem is that you cannot tell me nothing nefarious will ever be done with it. The 4th amendment to the constitution is there because of that exactly. Yes, that's right, the 4th amendment to the US constitution specifically attempted to refrain government from collecting information on people who have done no wrong or is not suspected of doing any wrong. It solved a problem where British agents would barge in and collect information then later use it against you when some law was changed or some edict was issued by the king or even a governor.

      Now suppose you oppose the king of the US for any reason in the future, what will be done with this information? Will it be known that someone used your phone to call a poison control line when it appeared their kid ingested antifreeze? Will that be used to take your children away for bad parenting when you attempt to get a law changed or protest the passing of a law? Suppose that someone called a suicide hot line from your phone, are they going to claim you are violent and homicidal when your significant other runs her car off the road trying to avoid hitting a deer and is almost killed? Suppose your neighbor committed suicide and all those queries popped up in your computer history and phone records, are you now going to be blamed for murdering him and making it look like a suicide? Even if it was him using your phone and computer to research ways to kill himself?

      Tell me, what can't the government do with this information? the information is without context until someone who wants to pin something on you decided to put context around it. In the end, you end up looking like the thief caught red handed and trying to talk his way out of it, except you may have done nothing wrong or illegal at all.

    49. Re:Hope and Change by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

      This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

      The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
      -- George Washington

    50. Re: Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. How dare you for engaging in criticism of Dear Leader on the public internet. And you did it illegally, trying to conceal your identity as ANONYMOUS. We need to detain you until you can provide the real names & contact details of the other ANONYMOUS cowards you were consorting with.

      Give it a year. Not two. This will happen, if it hasn't already.

    51. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The Republicans proactively and loudly endorse corporate governance of the US at the expense of the citizenry. What do they need donations for when they're already under the thumb?

  9. Results by Major+Ralph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My confidence in this actually accomplishing anything is zero.

    --
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
    1. Re:Results by intermodal · · Score: 1

      It accomplishes quite a bit, I believe. But none of their stated goals, and none consistent with the United States Constitution. They've gone way beyond plausible deniability at this point.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:Results by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To an extent I agree with you... But it may have one very important consequence that Obama didn't intend. Snowden now has a glaring example of how his revelations caused changes in policy and government. Making it rather obvious that what he was doing was "whistle blowing" something there are protections for in law. Now, that doesn't mean the administration doesn't have zillions of lawyers that will find a way to put the guy in jail forever if they catch him but I think this change has at least taken the death penalty off the table. This is good news for Snowden.

    3. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confident it was accomplishing something - even more covert spying. There will be a puppet in one hand distracting the public where the other hand is... well, doing other things best not spoken.

    4. Re:Results by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Most of Obama's friends in the press will shut up about it: Mission Accomplished.

      Anyone who still brings it up will be assured that all is well because Obama is on the case (so shut up and don't be a racist).

    5. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making it rather obvious that what he was doing was "whistle blowing" something there are protections for in law.

      The laws concerning whistleblowing don't exist in the same text when one is bound by security clearances and the rule of law when those clearances are breached are a whole different can of worms. What some are applauding Snowden for as a patriotic act is in reality a terrible breach of service to this country.

      Likewise, what fallout transpiring as a result is making the United States of America look so utterly vulnerable for the actions of just one lone act of treason again her, once again giving the world reason to hate us and mistrust us all the more. This aspect is more troubling than the actual breach by Snowden.

    6. Re:Results by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whistle blower laws are precisely written, they do not include anything and everything that you or I would call whistle blowing. One of the caveats in the laws is that they do not apply if it is illegal for you to release the information even if releasing that information is an act of whistle blowing. Whistle blower laws were written to prevent illegal reprisals for releasing confidential data, not to prevent legal prosecution for releasing classified data.

      Leaking documents classified Top Secret is unarguably illegal, in this case it was an act of civil disobedience to expose a greater evil. IMO he should be pardoned and welcomed home with opened arms, that's not going to happen but it's what I think is right. That doesn't mean whistle blower laws apply to his situation.

    7. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making it rather obvious that what he was doing was "whistle blowing" something there are protections for in law.

      Just because he blew the whistle doesn't mean he could not have still broken some very serious laws. The lawyers will be just fine here.
      He even said that today clear as day when they went after it. Usually the whistle blowing thing covers people who just bow whistles he actually ran way to less than friendly breaking more laws.

      Not defending anyone here but I would not want to be him!

    8. Re:Results by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The laws concerning whistleblowing don't exist in the same text when one is bound by security clearances and the rule of law when those clearances are breached are a whole different can of worms.

      Care to cite them, or are they secret too?

      ...once again giving the world reason to hate us and mistrust us all the more.

      If you care what people think of you, the solution isn't to hide that you're an evil asshole. The solution is clearly to stop being an evil asshole. If somebody exposes the truth about you, all fault still lies with you. "If you have nothing to hide..." after all, right?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    9. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when we set up our concentration camps, we need to classify their existence. Then clearly, it would be a bad and treasonous thing to expose them. Right?

      Classification is not a tool to be used to hide illegal actions. If whistleblowing laws protect exposing malfeasance, but exclude exposing that exact same malfeasance if it is classified, then all malfeasance will become classified and the whistleblowing laws become meaningless.

    10. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      him but I think this change has at least taken the death penalty off the table. This is good news for Snowden.

      I think that is very bad news for him, because he still faces the prospect of forever in prison if he is returned to the US. Taking the death penalty off the table makes it *far* easier for the US to bring him back with a legal extradition (as opposed to kidnapping him).

    11. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting point. Take it the other way--by vigorously pursuing and villianizing Snowden, the Obama administration now cannot back down on surveillance. Clearly Snowden cannot have merit. It gives more weight to the opinion that this is just a PR move.

    12. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whistle blower laws are precisely written

      Tell that to Drake (Snowden's inspiration.

    13. Re:Results by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      If you care what people think of you, the solution isn't to hide that you're an evil asshole. The solution is clearly to stop being an evil asshole. If somebody exposes the truth about you, all fault still lies with you. "If you have nothing to hide..." after all, right?

      You do realize that you're trying to talk sense to someone who just equated whistleblowing with treason, right?

    14. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree!

      What you've essentially pointed out is that whistleblower laws are toothless, since they come with a built-in loop hole. If you don't want whistleblowers to have any protection, mark everything bad that you do as "classified". Problem solved! Now you can't be a whistleblower without losing whistleblower protection.

    15. Re:Results by Guest316 · · Score: 1

      The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited. http://news.yahoo.com/no-death-penalty-snowden-convicted-us-says-213552147.html

    16. Re:Results by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      The laws concerning whistleblowing don't exist in the same text when one is bound by security clearances and the rule of law when those clearances are breached are a whole different can of worms.

      So the rule of law only applies to underlings and not to the people on top? Do you really honestly think that is how the rule of law is supposed to work?

      In his book With Liberty and Justice for Some Glenn Greenwald explains:

      the United States has become a country that does not apply the rule of law to its elite class, which is another way of saying the United States does not apply the rule of law.

      If everyone followed your logic, and there were no brave, patriotic souls like Snowden and Manning willing to report massive law breaking by the elite class then the rule of law and government of the people, by the people, for the people, would perish from the earth.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    17. Re:Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaking documents classified Top Secret is unarguably illegal

      Incorrect. The authority of Congress to pass laws (or do anything) is limited by the Bill of Rights, which all legislators swear oaths to uphold as a precondition to holding any position of public trust or responsibility. The ability of the judiciary to enforce such laws, and the executive branch, is similarly limited.

      James Madison put the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and part of the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people) in the Bill of Rights to make it open ended, recognizing that any finite list of rights would sooner of later be found to be incomplete.

      By definition, no entity of government has the authority to change this. Rights "retained by the people", after all, are retained by the people. "Retained by the people" does not even remotely mean the same thing as "steal-able by the government". Hence, no act of Congress, no executive order, and no judicial precedent is required for such rights to be asserted, and none of these can interfere with the exercise of such rights.

      To the extent that leaking a document is done as part of an exercise of some right "retained by the people" or "reserved to the people", this supersedes the authority of Congress to make this act criminal. Without any possibility of doubt (one might even say "inarguably") there will be times when revealing classified documents is an exercise of such a right.

      A right to long term oversight over the government is certainly a right that might reasonably be asserted as being "reserved to the people", and to the extent that classification schemes prevent the exercise of this right, they are illegal. Note that "long term" is the key here, but in some cases a right to "short term" oversight can also reasonably be asserted.

      Similarly, a right to privacy, and a right to not be spied upon by one's own government, at least in most circumstances and for most people, are also rights that can reasonably asserted as being "retained by the people".

      Whether or not this point applies in the particular case of Snowdon requires detailed consideration of the facts and is beyond the scope of this post.

      As no law can interfere with the exercise of rights arising under the Bill of Rights, no law can penalize any person for the exercise of such rights in any way, even to the extent of wasting their time. It is not legal to issue a warrant against them. It is not legal to exercise such a warrant. It is not legal to make an arrest, or attempt to limit their movement. If any attempt to do these things is made, the government officials involved are in violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, and such oaths being a precondition for holding office, are immediately removed from government service. It does not require an act of Congress to remove such people from government service. It does not require that one petition some government committee to review their actions. Their actions, in and of themselves, by having violated the oaths that are preconditions for such service, immediately and permanently remove them from such service. If these people are legal professionals, they are also disqualified from engaging in the practice of law.

      Legal professionals often find it inconvenient to remember the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is, after all, ever so much easier to fleece the sheep if they don't realize they have any say in the system. It is often the case that members of the legal profession will attempt to create the impression that we have a government of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer and as such the reasoning of ordinary people is irrelevant with respect to legal matters.

      Such conduct by legal professionals, however, is smoke and mirrors (not to mention unethical). The 9th and 10th Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, and as all legal professionals swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, they forget this at their peril.

      Some officers in the

    18. Re:Results by khchung · · Score: 1

      The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited.

      http://news.yahoo.com/no-death-penalty-snowden-convicted-us-says-213552147.html

      And you believed it? You got to be incredibly naive to believe ANY promise from the US Govt after the number of lies they have told related to this by now.

      I don't think Putin is THAT stupid. Of course, whether he cared if Snowden will die in the hands of the US is another thing entirely.

      --
      Oliver.
  10. Awesome by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their job will include figuring out how to maintain the public's trust and prevent abuse

    Isn't it a little late for that?
    Short of stopping indiscriminate surveillance, but that does not seem to be in the cards.

    1. Re:Awesome by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Their job will include figuring out how to maintain the public's trust and prevent abuse

      Isn't it a little late for that?

      Realpolitik time: The U.S. government isn't going away, regardless of its moral authority. Our lack-of-trust and non-participation in the broken democracy we have here would only lessen our ability to effect change. Unless you, personally, are ready for open revolution, you've got to work within the framework that already exists. Obama has more or less only gone as far as he promised on rolling back government abuses as he suggested he would in 2008. Go look at the debates against McCain, where he suggested drone strikes in lieu of wars(citing existing such actions in Pakistan), his carefully limited assertions about warrant-less wiretaps. If people didn't know what they were getting, they have no one to blame but themselves.

    2. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how to maintain the public's trust

      i.e. how to whitewash a criminal gov't program.

  11. Sell crazy some place else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all stocked up here.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOwHutnXNA

  12. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust is shattered. This is just a PR "we will fix this" stunt.

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lavabit chose to act conscientously and honestly, so it is quite their own fault they shut down. You'll find plenty of American companies who'll instead act patriotically and cooperate with the government. It's the rule rather than the exception, just like with most citizens.

      That's what makes social experiments like National Socialism and more modern versions of fascism so gratifying..

  13. Dont kid yourselves Obamabots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Obama is part of the abuse.

    1. Re:Dont kid yourselves Obamabots by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obama is part of the abuse.

      Part of the abuse? I don't think so.

      At this point, Obama appears to be the primary force behind the abuse. He's the one with the "kill list", too.

    2. Re:Dont kid yourselves Obamabots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A kill list and drones to rain down on those people... and anyone who happens to be inside 100 meters when these robotic drones come in also dies.

      America is a corrupt disgusting country.

    3. Re:Dont kid yourselves Obamabots by jbrown.za · · Score: 1

      He's the one with the "kill list", too.

      Is that why he refers to Snowden in past tense? ... "I don't think Mr. Snowden WAS a patriot."

  14. Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, he's going to let outside interests. Lobbyists. People with a stake in the game. Money to be made. Oversee the program, and make sure it doesn't get abused. Hah.

    1. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What do you think happened to David Petraeus? He was probably doing things as the CIA leader they didn't like.

      They have already used, and as of at least yesterday, still use the IRS to target political opponents despite claiming they stopped it.

    2. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't linked snowden to some sleeze item to turn the masses against him. It works every single time.

    3. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      You. Have a funny way. Of punctuating sentences. Hmm.

      Maybe a laxative will help.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    4. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, of course they're not interested in "ordinary" people.

      I disagree. Having all of everyone's communications, in terms of gleaning competitors' ideas, IP-under-development--and for the other side of their lives as consumers, the precise moment-by-moment demographic and buying habits of everyone, is an Immediate Win for any crony-capitalist revolving-door "industry partner" the bureaucrats want to back-channel the data to.

      I don't consider the NSA to be quite as stupid as to allocate these vast sums of money for vast storage capability with its non-necessity for tracking likely actual terrorists. A few milliseconds of faster stock trades leads to domination in the financial market--how does the information "edge" of all historical activity of all people compare?

      I think they know exactly where the money and power in this is, and tracking "ordinary people" is and has been the -central goal-.

    5. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remind me again where the buck stops?

      Truman?

    6. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't linked snowden to some sleeze item to turn the masses against him. It works every single time.

      Why bother? They know the masses will just forget him after they abduct him or shoot him and he isn't in the news anymore.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, petraeus happened to be a registered republican, even in a non-political post, politicians see the people who do non-political functionary work as ultimately replacables and anyone they pick will ultimately do the same exact job.

      Really its the other way around. Any politician will ultimately do the same job, while the people under them do the work that matters.

    8. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that a bunch of times and haven't found a SINGLE source stating what you claim. I guess if the scandal is too bad you just make crap up and hope no one else tries to fact check you.

      Actual Numbers:
      Of the 298 groups looked at:
      292 - Conservative
      6 - Progressive

      Of those 100% of the conservative groups were given extra scrutiny, 0% of the Progressive ones were. No progressive group members could be found to testify to Congress, they were asked but none of them had been harrassed.

      [Citation Present]

      Don't come here and lie, it makes you look like the ass you are.

    9. Re:Fox in the henhouse by spitzak · · Score: 0

      If you actually read the citation you quoted you would see you changed the numbers:

      1. There were 298 groups total. This includes ones with "progress" in their names, ones with "tea party" in their names, and others (such as the marijuana stuff mentioned). 6 of them were ones with "progress" in their names. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their names.

      2. 100% of any subset of these 298 were "given extra scrutiny" since that is what the list is.

      3. The investigators compared this list to a full list of applicants for tax exempt status and found that 100% of the groups with "tea party" in their names were put into this list, while only 30% of the groups with "progress" in their names were put into the list (thus implying there were a total of 20 groups with "progress" in their names, and the total number with "tea party" in their names is between 1 and 292).

      The primary errors you made are:

      1. Claiming that all groups that don't have "progress" in their names are "Conservative"

      2. You applied the 30% wrong, and then for some reason it morphed from 30% to 0%.

      It's kind of sad you have to lie. The underlying article does back up what you wanted to say. I would be nice if they printed the number of "tea party" groups since that is the biggest unknown. There could be an excuse that they only investigated new groups and not ones that the application had been done before, but there is certainly a non-zero number of "tea party" groups that existed for more than a year so the selection should not have been 100%

    10. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its kind of sad that you repeated what I did, said the source doesn't say what I claim it did, repeat what I said again, THEN called me a liar.

      100% of Conservative groups targeted, we both said that
      30% of Progressive groups looked at, which is 6 total, we both said that.

      The problem is, you are claiming of the 292 targeted only 6 are conservative groups. You KNOW that is a lie, but you are hoping no one goes to the story I linked, as you refused to link anything yourself.

      Its funny how every liberal that "debates" me has to lie to make a point and then call me the liar. Anyone confused, follow the CBS story and do your own searches. You will not find ONE progressive group harrased, only 6 were "looked at". You will not find ONE conservative group not harrassed, they were harrassed at 100%. All the above comment saying different are outright lies and attempts to confuse you, I suggest before anyone claims different they look for themselves.

    11. Re:Fox in the henhouse by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Quote from your article: "0% of the Progressive ones were." Go read it and then call me a liar.

      I certainly did not say "only 6 are conservative groups". Please explain why you claim that. Perhaps you read my post as carefully as you read the article?

      The only facts in the article, and this is exactly what I wrote:

        1. There is a list of 298 groups that were targeted.
        2. 6 of them had "progress" in their names.
        3. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their name
        4. There is a much larger list of all groups the investigators had access to.
        5. This larger list had 20 groups with "progress" in their names (thus leading to the 30% statistic)
        6. This larger list had the same number with "tea party" in their names as was in the targeted list (thus leading to the 100% statistic).

      Go and read what you wrote, what I wrote, and stop being an ass.

      You actually had a citation to a real article. I think it very suspicious that the percentage of tea party is much higher than for progressive, meaning that there was further editing after filtering by names. You have a good argument, but you kill it by lying.

    12. Re:Fox in the henhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that may come too. But I think they reckon that treason charges are good enough. Overdoing things may backfire ans there is always an option of an 'accident' happening. After all Russians could do that to their own dissidents in UK too. They were bold enough to leave the guy who most likely did it in duma too but this is maybe too tasteless for western governements that like to pose as democratic and observing human rights etc. Although French do not have so I guess everything goes these days.

      Quite frankly I wonder why I am posting as AC - I mean what is the point of that these days?

  15. Transparency is good by arcite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Government watches the people, the people watch the government. Everyone's happy. A world with fewer secrets is a safer world.

    1. Re:Transparency is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoke and mirrors, plain and simple. Try to appease the people, so they put down the pitchforks. Because the people mad now can stir up enough trouble.

    2. Re:Transparency is good by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      And when they announce that they've stopped domestic spying, are you going to believe them?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Transparency is good by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Not good enough, not by a long shot.

    4. Re:Transparency is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There won't be any real transparency. There will be a transparency theater so they can go back to not telling us what's really going on. If in the future we ever ask the NSA "are there any other programs you're not telling us about", and they say "No, there are no other programs; we've told you everything we're doing", how can we believe them? And then, when a whistleblower basically throws his (or her) whole life away to give us the documents that completely contradict what we were told, it'll be a few months until everything is transparent again and we're supposed to trust they're telling the truth.

    5. Re:Transparency is good by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      The transparent glass that they will be showing you will be just a photoshopped image. They lied before, they lied today, they will keep lying tomorrow. This is just to calm down dumb people, not to stop anything they are doing.

    6. Re:Transparency is good by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what I don't get. The PR machine failed. Their reaction shouldn't have been to cover up and hide, and then somewhat admit to the truth. Snowden should've been called a hero, welcomed back, etc., Obama should've retired a few top folks from NSA, saying he wasn't aware of the full extent of the problem, and uh, oh, how would this ever happen, accept full responsibility (e.g. Reagan), make a big deal about dismantling the programs (while simply just renaming them)... and continue everything as is.

      Everyone's happy, and only conspiracy nuts don't believe the official story. As it is, this is just proof that just 'cause you're paranoid, does not mean they're not after you.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    7. Re:Transparency is good by umghhh · · Score: 1
      an attempt to provide something to watch on people's side is gone sour for Manning (admittedly he screwed it up by dumping it all without filtering). It has not been a joy ride for Snowden either and for a good reason: US gov and aparently any other western gov play together in a concerted effort to prevent such thing like informed public in the first place.

      To put it more simply - people have no means and time to actually control properly the gov. It was always the case that is why we have invented different branches of the government so that they can keep each other in check. This obviously does not work if people cannot complain or cannot travel because they did or do not even know there is something to complain about which was I guess the reason a court was set to be secret. This whole secrecy thing made them being able to lie in congress hearings without fear of being prosecuted. If they lie here then the can lie any other time, who says they do this all for us?

      In other words - gov not happy because of this sucker Snowden and we people not happy because of ... this sucker Snowden. Solution is almost there right?

  16. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We promise only to point the giant computer at the bad guys people, come on, work with me here.

    captcha:fixing

  17. Landlines by MarkvW · · Score: 2

    If they're listening to US landlines without a warrant, then they are willfully violating the Constitution.

    I worry that Bush and Obama have knowingly permitted this.

    1. Re:Landlines by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      You worry? It's a fact. Every president since Lincoln first allowed the tapping of telegraph wires (yes he really did) has knowingly permitted this.

    2. Re:Landlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lincoln was quelling a fucking insurrection. And it was probably STILL ILLEGAL.

    3. Re:Landlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, it's not like there is anything magical about landlines... If they're listening to cellphones, or reading email, or fucking eavesdropping on conversations in a goddamn shopping mall; they are violating the Constitution. None of the communication technologies in use today existed when it was written, so it is not specific to a technology.

  18. The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs." - Obama.

    You're not seeing the abuse, therefore it's not happening. Good one. Alternatively, the system IS the abuse, and we're all very well aware of it now, thanks to that courageous Mr. Snowden.

    By the way, it's not OK to spy on Americans, but it is fine to invade the privacy of everyone else on the planet? Hmm. As a non-American, I can't say I agree.

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    1. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an American, I'm not sure I agree either.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's not OK to spy on Americans, but it is fine to invade the privacy of everyone else on the planet? Hmm. As a non-American, I can't say I agree.

      Not to worry, since one's affiliation online is not obvious, they are apparently allowed to assume that their target is non-American by default. Americans don't really have more privacy than you do.

    3. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's not OK to spy on Americans, but it is fine to invade the privacy of everyone else on the planet? Hmm. As a non-American, I can't say I agree.

      Well, the US Constitution is what makes it not OK for the US government to spy on Americans. There's no law we're beholden to that makes it wrong to spy on anyone else. There could be ratified international treaties, and we should respect those, but governments can back out of a treaty anytime they choose. It's the job of other countries counter-intelligence agencies to try to prevent it.

      This isn't nationalism, btw. I feel the same way about other countries spying on Americans. I expect them to try, and I see nothing wrong with it, if they've determined they have reason to. When I see stories about the Chinese stealing classified info from US military computers I don't think, "damn you, China!" I get angry with our own agencies and think, "we really should know better than leaving classified information in computers connected to unsecured networks! We need to do a better job of protecting our secrets."

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    4. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way.

      I'm sure it is simple for the government to spy on people's communications, but since when does something being simple make it okay? It would be fairly simple for the government to break into your house and install surveillance equipment everywhere, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.

      Non-american's always know better than American's about America....

      As an American, I think we need to throw out all these worthless warmongers.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dear President Obama,

      If you don't know of any abuse of these programs, may we suggest you ask the DEA?

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/08/05/more-surveillance-abuse-exposed-special-dea-unit-is-spying-on-americans-and-covering-it-up/

      Thank you,

      The American Citizenry

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The rule is they need to be 51% certain that the person in question is not American.

      US population: 313,914,040
      World population: 7,104,000,000

      Given a person, odds that they are American: 4.4%

      Thus, it is safe to assume all people are not Americans, as there is a 95.6% chance you are right, much higher than the 51% hurdle.

    7. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Non-american's always know better than American's about America..... :) NOT!!!!"

      True, but at least they are able to use your grammar correctly and have been known on occasion to fashion a coherent sentence without resorting to capitals, emoticons or strings of exclamation points for emphasis.

    8. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by khallow · · Score: 2

      He abandoned his country...family....and job.

      So would you be able to make a similar painful sacrifice, if you uncovered such wrong doing?

    9. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! When a secret program is set up based on the secret interpretation of vague law, what exactly would constitute abuse?

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    10. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I expect them to try, and I see nothing wrong with it

      This attitude is why we have so many useless warmongers in our government.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    11. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs." - Obama.

      You're not seeing the abuse, therefore it's not happening.

      Actually, we are seeing the abuse.

      TL;DR: The DEA is obtaining information from the NSA, then pretending that their investigation didn't use it (because it would be inadmissible in court). They then practice "parallel construction" and reconstruct a fake trail of evidence to cover their tracks. They never share this with the defense counsel. This undermines pretrial discovery rules and the entire justice system.

    12. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I expect them to try, and I see nothing wrong with it

      This attitude is why we have so many useless warmongers in our government.

      Out of curiosity, why do you believe that? I don't think other nations spying on us is an act of war or something that requires a retaliatory response. I think it's business as usual, we just need to take better care of our stuff and make their job difficult. Isn't that the exact opposite of warmongering?

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    13. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      As an American living in a foreign country, I definitely don't agree.

    14. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't think other nations spying on us is an act of war or something that requires a retaliatory response.

      That's not what I meant. I meant that I believe we shouldn't see every other country to be an enemy worth spying on. Warmongering comes in many forms.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Snowden was a tool....coward ...and traitor.

      Snowden deserves a medal for whistleblowing.

      THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way./quote?
      Yes, just like there' no expectation that the police will kick down your door, take all your stuff, torture you until they get bored, and then put a bullet in your head.

      It's *law*, and respect for the law, that give you your civil liberties, not the difficulty of violating them.

      They give the same shite on reading your e-mail: it's not hard to spy on, therefore there's no expectation of privacy, therefore it's OK to spy on it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, it's not OK to spy on Americans, but it is fine to invade the privacy of everyone else on the planet? Hmm. As a non-American, I can't say I agree.

      As a non-American, what happens in America is not your business or your problem.

      So shove your opinions up your ass, motherfucker.

    17. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      The programs themselves are an abuse. The secret courts and secret rules and secret legal arguments are an abuse. It doesn't matter if no human has ever looked at the database, the fact of the database's existence is in and of itself an abuse.

    18. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The so called legit use of these programs is abuse! Just because you wrote some law and a court interpreted it secretly, doesn't mean it's non-abusive.

    19. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I don't think other nations spying on us is an act of war or something that requires a retaliatory response.

      That's not what I meant. I meant that I believe we shouldn't see every other country to be an enemy worth spying on. Warmongering comes in many forms.

      It's not about seeing every other country as an enemy. It's about knowing that your goals don't always match. Not every game is cooperative, some are competitive, and we all want to win those.

      You could argue spying is cheating, but I would say it's naive to assume everybody else is going to share your view. I think taking things that belong to other people is unacceptably immoral, and it would be wonderful if everyone felt that way. They don't, and as a result I lock my car when I leave it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    20. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      I thought the "O" in Obama stood for "big vagina," Thanks for correcting me!

    21. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      As a non-American, what happens in America is not your business or your problem.

      So shove your opinions up your ass, motherfucker.

      As a non-American being spied upon by America, it very much IS my business and my problem.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    22. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Not every game is cooperative, some are competitive, and we all want to win those.

      I'd rather not play such a game if it means infringing upon the rights of non-citizens (and yes, I do believe they have rights).

      but I would say it's naive to assume everybody else is going to share your view.

      I don't assume that. I just feel that freedom is more important than security and care about more than just citizens of my own country.

      They don't, and as a result I lock my car when I leave it.

      Which doesn't violate anyone's privacy or do any other such thing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    23. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not play such a game if it means infringing upon the rights of non-citizens (and yes, I do believe they have rights).

      Absolutely they have rights. There are lines I think we shouldn't cross no matter what. As an American, it embarrasses the crap out of me that we've engaged in torture, for example. This disagreement between you and I is a clear example that different people place that line in different places, though. And that's between two people from a fairly similar culture (I assume). What happens when you add a very difficult culture to the mix? The obvious example is the treatment of women in Muslim countries or their view of free speech when it concerns religions (any place with a blasphemy law). Alternative we could bring up the point that many (not all) Chinese citizens feel it's the duty of the government to spy on them and control the dissemination of information to maintain an ordered society. However, we don't need to go to this extreme. Several European nations have declared access to broadband internet a human right, something most Americans laugh at. Or look at how many people believe health care should be a human right while half the people in the US are complaining about the the Affordable Health Care Act and believe government should stay completely out of it.

      What rights people have, what duties the government has, how people should behave toward one another...there is no consensus on any of it! You think spying on anyone is immoral, I think it's not necessarily so, unless you're breaking a social contract (for example, by violating the laws of the land or properly ratified treaties). The best that we do is group ourselves around our common beliefs and form a government around that shared view. And there are things we do that we believe is absolutely right but others think it is wrong. And they're going to try to stop us from doing that "wrong" thing. And if we want to protect our rights to keep doing it anyway, we need to defend ourselves. We do the same thing to them. Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do. Did anyone ask if they want democracy? We know it's the best form of government, and if they don't want it, they just don't understand it! Let them live with it and get used to it, and they'll thank us for it (while welcoming their liberators with flowers).

      Nobody has intrinsic rights. We have whatever rights we've agreed upon in our particular group, and we have them for as long as we can defend them. So defending them is a good idea. Not at all costs, I agree with you. Sometimes the price is too high. I think we should never torture anyone for any reason. You go above that and don't think we should violate anyone's privacy for any reason. But I'm sure you have your own list of acceptable behavior. I assume you think killing is wrong, but if your country is invaded, do you approve of killing in order to defend it? Why? What if you knew more lives would be saved by surrendering, but you knew your way of life under the new government was going to be incompatible with your current beliefs now?

      The TL;DR version: we're not going to convince each other, we have fundamentally different beliefs. That said, my personal justification for my belief is that if it's not codified in our laws that this isn't something we don't do, then people should assume we believe it's alright to do. In fact, they should assume we're going to do it whenever it suits our interests and prepare accordingly. On the other hand, if we're violating our law books we should be held responsible for it.

      They don't, and as a result I lock my car when I leave it.

      Which doesn't violate anyone's privacy or do any other such thing.

      Ok, I can come up with a different example. How about security cameras at stores?

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    24. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do.

      Because they are imbeciles. It is funny how so many people will not trust the government with health care, but then turn around and trust the government when it comes to wars and powers that could easily be used to violate fundamental rights.

      Nobody has intrinsic rights.

      I don't believe in intrinsic rights, either.

      So defending them is a good idea.

      But if we have to defend them in such a way that it involves violating the privacy of citizens in other countries for little or no reason (which is what we're doing now), then I don't want any such defense because such a country is not worth defending. I do not care for TSA-like security where we hand over people's rights just to feel safe. I believe we should have principles that we don't discard whenever it's convenient for us.

      You go above that and don't think we should violate anyone's privacy for any reason.

      For any reason? That's not what I actually believe. I don't think we should be spying on other countries unless we have a damn 'good' reason (and suspicion isn't enough) to do so (such as if they're a hostile country), but even then I don't think we should harass normal citizens.

      Why?

      Self-defense.

      How about security cameras at stores?

      Presumably, stores are private property. What does this have to do with the government spying on people in other countries?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    25. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the US Constitution is what makes it not OK for the US government to spy on Americans. There's no law we're beholden to that makes it wrong to spy on anyone else.

      The Constitution permits the government to do only that which is explicitly enumerated. And spying is explicitly prohibited. There is no distinction between Americans (does that mean US citizens?) and non-Americans.

    26. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      It is if America decide to spy on you because you are not American. If America decide to spy only on americans, is up to them, no reason for foreigners to step in. That would be a nice change, for starters. What you will buy with your thirty pieces of silver?

    27. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I forgot about that, yep.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    28. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by db10 · · Score: 0

      This seems somehow appropriate, it fits in some kind of context: "The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a wild animal from the planet of Traal. It is known for its never-ending hunger and its mind boggling stupidity, indeed being listed in the Guide as the stupidest creature in the entire universe. It is such a profoundly unintelligent animal that it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you. - Douglas Adams"

    29. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      Well, the US Constitution is what makes it not OK for the US government to spy on Americans. There's no law we're beholden to that makes it wrong to spy on anyone else.

      I suggest you go back and re-read the Constitution.

      It has a differentiation between citizens and people, the latter being the set of all people. Not just US citizens.

      And here's the clause relevant to this discussion:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers

      Ooops, applies to all people!

    30. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is one thing you can't call Snowden, it is a coward. It takes a hell of a lot of courage to expose your governments abuses like he did, it is far easier to keep your well paying job and comfortable life by just keeping your mouth shut. I can't say I'd have the courage to do what he did.

    31. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama wants his words to be taken seriously he should be thanking Snowden for exposing what is going on, by not doing that he is implicitly agreeing that it is acceptable. He says whistleblowers are patriots, but when presented with one he calls him a traitor.

    32. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do.

      Because they are imbeciles

      So you honestly think Iraq would be better off today under Saddam than their current status?

    33. Re:The O in Obama stands for Zero Credibility by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't know and don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's not our job to be the world's police force, and in fact, I think it's wrong to try to be.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  19. And we must Stop Using US Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because you obviously don't have any intention to stop spying.

    1. Re:And we must Stop Using US Services by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2

      And what country do you suggest we use?

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to use three different countries. Generate two one time pads, xor your data with both. Store each piece in different countries with different ideologies.

      Data capacity these days is enough to pull this off.

      There are lots of details to work out, but it can be done if someone is enterprising enough.

    3. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      what's the point? you can be compelled to provide decryption, and quite severely punished if you do not

    4. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not in the USA you can't.

      Even if you could there is always the option of doing what the republican's Patron Saint Reagan did and simply claiming you forgot.

    5. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you are only subject to the "laws" of your own country. And they must come to you. They cannot go to your provider and get the information without telling you.

      Also it's possible to make self destructing keys. So by the time they get the key, it's been destroyed.

    6. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      you need to read of the USA cases more closely. If the government convinces the court that there is already proof of existence of incriminating data in your files, you can be compelled to provide keys. It is only in the case where it is *unknown* whether or not there is incriminating data that you have 5th amendment protection.

      very fine line to understand, and one the government can exploit.

    7. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Read the first part of your second sentence.

      You can always say you forgot. How can they prove otherwise?

    8. Re: And we must Stop Using US Services by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      read my first post, in that case, if the government "proves" illegal content exists, then you will be punished as the assumption will be you are withholding evidence.

    9. Re:And we must Stop Using US Services by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      When/if possible, use your own servers. Here are some suggestions

  20. All PR, no actual change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he wants to spend a lot of resources on explaining to people why mass surveillance is needed rather than stopping it.

    1. Re:All PR, no actual change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if he can get this characteristic haircut with his hair but for toothbrush mustache we could get a glued-up version.
      As for the greeting I am sure he can manage that. Only HeilHitler would not fit - I guess this we can leave to the invention spirit of his PR crew.

  21. MoJo on Obama by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    Fuck off. Take you spying and your drones and fuck off.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Too late by Red+Jesus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want my email back. Show me a plan that restores my Lavabit access and I'll take this effort seriously. This isn't a game.

  23. Transparency by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Transparency is not the issue. Constitutionality is.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transparency is not the issue. Constitutionality is.

      When you're happy to let the government pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to follow, what do you expect will happen?

    2. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      captcha: contempt

      Nobody gives a fuck about your goddamned captcha.

  24. "you're not seeing is people actually abusing..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he's right, but because of the way they have handled this I just going to keep wearing by Skeptics Hat.

  25. A lost case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I seldom call someone stupid. But if someone that voted on Obama, still thinks any good of him, then I would call that person stupid. It's very clear that the man is lost.

    1. Re:A lost case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think problem with this approach is that you assume his personal responsibility ignoring that of the ones before him (patriot act was signed by this brainy Bush kid) and the while establishment that lies and corrupts the politics in your country.

  26. Fox in the henhouse by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd have a lot more trust in Obama if he weren't the one responsible for ramping it up to the level it is today. (If not, remind me again where the buck stops?)

    Also, of course they're not interested in "ordinary" people. The instant they're interested in you, you're no longer ordinary.

    Imagine Snowden was some political candidate's nephew. And imagine that, instead of leaking details of the entire operation to the press, he leaked details of the other candidate's campaign strategies (or sexual exploits) back to his uncle. You know, like the Watergate breakins?

    If a junior flunky can do that sort of thing and get away with it, what makes you think it's not standard operating procedure?

    The NSA has the power to utterly control the entire political process with an iron grip -- and that's before we start to worry about political dissidents being extraordinarily renditioned.

    If Obama truly wanted to "address the situation," he'd completely dismantle the NSA. But, somehow, even if he truly wanted to, I rather doubt the NSA would let him....

    Cheers,

    &

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
  27. Kind of impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I trust these people to restore trust?
    Too late.

  28. Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be easier and far cheaper... TO STOP SPYING ON THE TAXPAYERS!

    I know... totally insane... but there it is.

  29. More Americans renounce their citizenship by PhuckIndian · · Score: 1

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-giving-passports-jump-sixfold-105958873.html Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship surged sixfold in the second quarter from a year earlier as the government prepares to introduce tougher asset-disclosure rules. Time for Lulzsec and other convicted freedom fighters who get slapped with million dollar fines to defect to China, the bastion of human rights.

    1. Re:More Americans renounce their citizenship by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      That from 100 jumped to 1000 are not significative enough numbers. Considering how much is being uncovered and how rotten is most of the upper layer of the government im amazed that it didn't reach exodus levels. I would like to think that it is because people realizes that the only way to solve the problem is to stay and vote them out, but the real explanation probably goes around not having a clue and thinking that all is ok.

  30. Our Intelligence has just been Insulted by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    I think I just felt everybody in America groan, roll their eyes, and flip him the bird.

    1. Re:Our Intelligence has just been Insulted by lasermike026 · · Score: 1

      I second that.

    2. Re:Our Intelligence has just been Insulted by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I think I just felt everybody in America groan, roll their eyes, and flip him the bird.

      All of us who aren't completely brainwashed Statists, that is.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  31. What Obama didn't say... by firewrought · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • Full investigation and prosecution of NSA officials.
    • Repeal of retroactive warrants, retroactive teleco immunity, secret NSL orders, and other extra-judicial bullshit.
    • Immediate legislation to broaden the definition of domestic surveillance and establish strict penalties for companies who cooperate with it.
    • Amnesty/whistleblower protection for Snowden. Oh, and his passport back.
    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    1. Re:What Obama didn't say... by stewsters · · Score: 1

      I would vote for whoever made that happen.

    2. Re:What Obama didn't say... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      • Full investigation and prosecution of NSA officials.
      • Repeal of retroactive warrants, retroactive teleco immunity, secret NSL orders, and other extra-judicial bullshit.
      • Immediate legislation to broaden the definition of domestic surveillance and establish strict penalties for companies who cooperate with it.
      • Amnesty/whistleblower protection for Snowden. Oh, and his passport back.

      Those things would require Obama to immediately take action, or be exposed for the lying fraudster he (like most every other modern president) actually is. Instead he's proposing vague generalities designed to dampen public anger long enough for the tame media to shift public awareness onto something less damaging to America's government. Obama should be judged by his actions and not his words - since his 2008 campaign that's become very clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

      If Obama meant anything he said (which he obviously doesn't) he would have fired National Intelligence Director Clapper and pardoned Snowden before or during his speech. For crying out loud, the only reason he's even giving this speech is because of the information Snowden made public.

    3. Re:What Obama didn't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I 2nd that ;)

  32. Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2008 part of Obongos platform was making the government more transparent. It's only gone in the opposite direction. Can't believe anything from the mouth of a politician.

  33. Believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tired of politicians and their bullshit. Walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

    Has Guantanamo closed yet?

  34. "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    That's like saying, it is OK for the government to keep a loaded gun pointed at the head of every citizen because they haven't shot anyone.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  35. Then Why Is It? by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."

    Then why is it? Why is it storing the metadata on every call and every HTTP request everyone makes? Is everyone not ordinary, or is America doing things in which it is not interested? I'm guessing it is option 3: You have redefined spying as "not spying" in your twisted little lawyer brain, to which I say, "Screw you, you forked-tongue traitor."

    1. Re:Then Why Is It? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      >> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."
      >
      > Then why is it?

      Practically speaking, I am confident it is simply a matter of collateral damage. Just like the US isn't interested in killing children in Afghanistan and Yemen but they still do it anyway because they really, really, really care about killing people they think are terrorists and if some kids in get in the way, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Then Why Is It? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      You don't believe the meta-data LIE do you? They store EVERYTHING. They did not build the huge data center in Utah with our tax dollars to store metadata....

    3. Re:Then Why Is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Smith vs Maryland 1979, the collection of metadata is not spying.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

    4. Re:Then Why Is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practically speaking, I am confident it is simply a matter of collateral damage. Just like the US isn't interested in killing children in Afghanistan and Yemen but they still do it anyway because they really, really, really care about killing people they think are terrorists and if some kids in get in the way, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

      And frankly, those fuckers were likely enough going to grow into terrorists, anyway. So making exceptions is going to be more trouble than it's worth.

  36. OBAMA STATEMENT VALID by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Troll

    For differing values of "We".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:OBAMA STATEMENT VALID by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. When he said "We need to be more transparent", he meant the American public needs to be more transparent so they can eavesdrop on us without having to spend so much money or violate so many laws.

      But Louis Freeh's FBI under Clinton didn't want Americans to be able to use encryption, and Bush's Homeland Security mafiosi wanted to wiretap us without warrants and got a Patriot Act wishlist draft handed to Congress within a week of 9/11, so it's not like there's much different about President Obama except whether he sounds like he feels guilty about getting caught. (Too bad - Senator Obama and Candidate Obama had been pretty decent on privacy issues.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  37. chicken & egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    yeah, cause it's really easy to catch abuse without transparency or oversight...

  38. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When asked about how his opinion of the surveillance programs have changed, he said his perception of them have not evolved since the story broke worldwide. "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    So I guess bypassing the Fourth Amendment doesn't count as abuse.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure#United_States :

    "A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed."

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smith vs Maryland 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland) states that there is no reason or expectation of privacy when you hand over information voluntarily to a third party. So no, they are not bypassing the 4th Amendment. You may THINK they are, but according to LAW they are not.

    2. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by stewsters · · Score: 1

      What about when the mailman opens your mail and gives it to them? You willingly gave that to the postman in good faith that the recipients on the front would be the only ones to read it. But you trusted a 3rd party to deliver your message. How is that different?

    3. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't bypassing the 4th amendment, that's what FISA and the Patriot Act did.
      The enemy is those acts and the politicians who pushed them down our throats.

    4. Re: Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also violates freedom of expression and freedom of association. I always have to be careful what I say and who I say it to because the NSA is always watching. If that doesn't have a chilling effect, what does?

    5. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The legitimacy of the the government set up by the Constitution flows from the people. If the people THINK that the 4th Amendment means something, but the government says that by LAW it means something else, then the people are right. If the US government doesn't have the support of the people, it is not a legitimate government at all.

      We can find all sorts of court cases that twist the words of the Constitution and defy reason in doing so. Every one of those cases, while a treat to the authoritarian psychopaths that are attracted to positions of power, weakens the legitimacy of the US government.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now they are redefining expectations... Do you still excpect privacy; I do not... (oh, and first, find the others)

    7. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by almechist · · Score: 1

      Smith vs Maryland 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland) states that there is no reason or expectation of privacy when you hand over information voluntarily to a third party. So no, they are not bypassing the 4th Amendment. You may THINK they are, but according to LAW they are not.

      Only an AC who's likely also a lawyer or politician of some kind would possibly bring this particular argument up. The average person does not consider an email to be "given to a third party" when they hit send. They assume, quite reasonably, that the email goes to the person it's addressed to and no one else. And in this case it's the expectations of the average person that determines whether there is a right to privacy or not. With regards to whether or not it's being given over to a third party, the law is by no means settled regarding email or even cellphone metadata, and it's dishonest to suggest that this is established law - especially by citing a pre-internet 1979 decision! On the contrary, it's simply one possible legal argument among many, and not a very good one at that.

    8. Re:Ignoring the U.S. Constitution = not abuse? by laird · · Score: 2

      And what about the abuses that were documented, such as analysis using the PRISM system to read their wife's emails because they suspected an affair, analysts passing around recordings of sexual phone calls, etc.? Did they not happen? Or were they not abuses?

      What scares me about these programs is that the eliminate the requirement to negotiate between independent parties who serve as a check on each other. For example, if the police want someone's email, they have to get a warrant and go to the ISP and ask for the email, and they only get what the ISP agrees is reasonable. And since the ISP's incentive is to protect their customers, they push back on unreasonable/illegal warrants. And if they can't across, it goes to court where a judge (and perhaps jury) can decide based on the law. And the law, and the entire process, is public so abuses can be identified and called out.

      Instead the government has access to everything automatically, bypassing the ISP, the need for a warrant, the law, courts, etc.

      Yes, there's a secret court making secret rulings, and creating secret laws, with no congressional or public oversight, and with companies affected by the secret laws forbidden to discuss it. That's no basis for legitimate law, that's creepy un-American lunacy, and it's an embarrassment that it was ever proposed, much less agreed to by Congress (admittedly in the 9/11 panic).

      If there's a "silver lining" to all of this, it's that the universal revulsion at the government's betrayal of our trust might possibly lead to politicians being forced to do something about it. Or we might get lucky and find a judge who's read the Constitution and cares about it more than avoiding offending powerful scared men.

  39. Anybody saw this? by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Were his pants on fire?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  40. Not gonna go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There will also be a new website for citizens to learn about transparency in intelligence agencies." ...where your IP address can be stored to a list of trouble makers, and we can inject a trojan on to your computer to monitor you.

    1. Re:Not gonna go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that is not needed anymore is it?

      I wonder what is the point of going AC anymore - they know who we are anyway.

  41. Why believe an admitted Liar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are we supposed to believe anything any of them say? The head of the NSA has already admitted to lying under oath, Obama has been caught in lie after lie. So we already know their Oaths mean nothing to them. They have no Honor, no sense of what's right, and could care less what the Constitution says.

  42. Patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is doing something for the greater good of the population not patriotic? Indeed, Obama's actions have established that Snowden's actions were patriotic, because he is doing the same thing - creating greater transparency for the good of the public.

  43. How to tell when the President is lying.. by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    His mouth is open.

  44. I'm not reassured. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This quote really bothers me:

    What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs.

    On the surface, it sounds like a fair point. To my knowledge, there haven't really been allegations of people digging into these records for specific unethical and abusive purposes. However:

    (a) I would question whether the collection and warehousing of this data is, in itself, and abuse.
    (b) It's pretty much impossible for us to know whether these programs are being abused, since there is no public oversight.
    (c) If there were reports of abuse, I'm not sure we'd know about it, since it's apparently illegal to talk about this program.

    All told, I don't feel particularly reassured. Even if there's no malicious abuse of the system, I would bet money that there's some casual abuse going on. As Obama is fond of saying, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the NSA has done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide.

    1. Re:I'm not reassured. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      If the NSA has done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide.

      What?

      I think you'd understand what was wrong with that statement if it was said of anyone except the NSA.

    2. Re:I'm not reassured. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I've heard numerous people in the government say that same line. I think the point was to apply that same logic to them and the government organizations they love so much.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:I'm not reassured. by nine-times · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the NSA was spying on you just now, I bet they heard a faint whooshing sound.

    4. Re:I'm not reassured. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      To my knowledge, there haven't really been allegations of people digging into these records for specific unethical and abusive purposes.

      Actually, there has.

      Someone at the NSA was snooping through Bill Clinton's email.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:I'm not reassured. by Deflagro · · Score: 1

      Well you aren't seeing it because that's how the system is supposed to work.

      Case in point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/08/05/more-surveillance-abuse-exposed-special-dea-unit-is-spying-on-americans-and-covering-it-up/

      No one is really questioning that there is abuse. I think that's assumed. The real question is why the surveillance is even happening. I'm guessing they are aware of these "abuses" but since no one can ever know about them, it's no big deal. Spy agencies spy, we get that. They just shouldn't treat every citizen as a terrorist and assume it's acceptable.

      You are being monitored and tracked and you are the enemy. Maybe not yet, but they can make you into anything they want. Information is power and they know everything on everyone. Scary.

      --
      Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    6. Re:I'm not reassured. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It's like the universe destroying button in public view and reach. "No one has pressed it yet." Well that's a relief. I guess it's okay not to have any checks and balances to the universe destroying button then.

    7. Re:I'm not reassured. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone at the NSA was snooping through Bill Clinton's email.

      Karma's a bitch: Project Trailblazer (the point at which the NSA took its foot off the metaphorical bedroom floor) was greenlit under Clinton.

  45. Bow! Yield! Kneel! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > "What you're not seeing is peopleactually abusingthese programs."

    Given alarm bells don't go off if someone listens to content without a warrant, i.e. no physical mechanism to prevent, much less track this, how would he know?

    Any one of a hundred senators or other powerful people know people in the NSA and could have an otherwise seemingly honest agent actually spying for them -- on business dealings, or opposing candidates. This doesn't even begin to address the supposedly "lesser-protected" metadata on who calls whom, which would have been more than enough to figure out who all the founding fathers were and round them up.

    And even if every agent and powerful person were honest today, what about 10 or 50 years from now? I keep bringing this up, but a G. Gordon Liddy type wouldn't think twice about listening in on the opposition.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  46. Re:Anyone who believes Obama is in charge is an id by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

    At first, I thought this comment might be a joke mocking the conspiratorially minded, but nope, check the comment history and this guy is basically just crazy and racist.

  47. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by space_jake · · Score: 1

    I think he means, "What you're not seeing is *the* people actually abusing these programs."

  48. Re: "you're not seeing is people actually abusing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's lying. What about the DEA and IRS.

  49. Yo dawg I heard you like bureaucracy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we gonna put in some regulations to monitor the people who might do bad things with the system for monitoring people who might do bad things.

  50. Why all the hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can spy on me all they want, as long as they can't deny or cancel my Obamacare.

  51. Yes We Must! by Sla$hPot · · Score: 1

    Lets see it happen

  52. court warrant by beefoot · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with applying a court warrant to wire tap a suspect?

    1. Re:court warrant by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Especially since they can do it after the fact.

    2. Re:court warrant by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with applying a court warrant to wire tap a suspect?

      ..they don't have enough judges to do them fast enough.

      "here, approve this warrant for 3000000 taps, plz!" (Actually, they did that - in the secret court?)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  53. Good Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Now that it is politically imperative, we must do the thing, and the other things. We must have the courage, the tenacity, the morale fortitude, to do whatever it is that will make me popular again. This is not about right or wrong, but about the morale certainty that of what is the right thing to do, which is that course of action that I now advocate. And I will continue to advocate, using great speeches and the soaring power of words, whatever it is that will cause applause. In fact I will continue, tirelessly, night and day, to talk my out of this, and the other things. So pay very close attention, to my words. Nothing else, just what comes out of my mouth. Thank you, good night, god bless America, thank you all, and god bless America."

    1. Re:Good Timing by jcr · · Score: 1

      That's the best synopsis to date of every fucking Obama speech I've ever heard. Well done.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  54. It's never too late by martas · · Score: 1

    For marketing and PR, that is. Public opinion can be turned around on anything, given sufficient effort. Notice how Bradley Manning slowly went from "hero" to "creepy loser" in public forums over the years?

  55. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    If you want privacy do not use the internet, do not use cell phones, etc..
    You get the picture, if all their efforts are focused on digital surveillance how long until their human surveillance reliability atrophies.

    Just keep in mind "going dark" in today's World sends up a big flare.
    Other than that why are we talking about "privacy" it no longer exist at least in the "dictionary definition" sense.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re: Laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea. We all need to go dark at random times. A little app that you run and every once in a while it tells you to go dark.

      If enough people do that, law enforcement won't be able to cope.

  56. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to be more open. Also, we need to desperately pursue and punish the man who let people know that there was even something to be open about. Until Snowden gets a presidential pardon and is welcomed home with a parade, this is 100% unadulterated bullshit. This is merely damage control. They don't want to be open and the proof of that is the tremendous fury they are showing in pursing the man who made them be open.

  57. Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....

    Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.

    I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights). I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy. I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.

    I just don't know what to do anymore.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I voted twice for Obama.

      ...

      I'd feel disgusting. At least vote for a third party to send a message, if nothing else.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the other poster, vote third party and stop giving a shit about whether it will make a difference to the outcome. It's about increasing other parties' percentages over time and sending a message to the big two.

    3. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States rights. Individual states revolt. And take back their rights from the federal government. You think Michigan, California, or any of the other broke states can afford drones and data collection on their own populace?

    4. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by DrEasy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Start a party! Or join one that is in line with your ideology! Be active! Recruit others!

      We need political groups who are endorsed by, or at least ideologically in line with, some of the NGOs and foundations that we (or at least I) support: EFF, Amnesty International, and others.

      I wonder what the Nobel Peace committee thinks about this whole mess that they endorsed a priori?

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    5. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....

      Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.

      I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights).

      You are failing to realize that the mass media would have outed everything they could, if only a Republican was in office. Don't you remember the original 'leaked stories' of government surveillance? The ones that actually involved spying on foreigners, even if they were talking to Americans. They were front page stories in the New York Times, back when Bush was in office. Now that Obama is there, Snowden had to go to a foreign paper to get his story out.

      I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy.

      That's why many of us who agree with that sentiment voted third party this last time. It's the only option left, unless...

      I'd say we need a revolution,

      Whether we need one or not, I believe one is coming. Within the next decade, at that.

      but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.

      So find less eager revolutionaries, and form your own group of concerned citizens, who plan to survive the coming revolution. Oops, you just became one of the groups you are terrified of.

      Honestly, that's all it would take. But once you are at the point, you'll see most of the other groups are more like you than you currently appreciate. (There are the groups of racist thugs, but they are not the majority of the groups.) They don't want to overthrow the government, they want to return the government to what it is supposed to be. But they realize the government won't allow this without a fight.

      I just don't know what to do anymore.

      Get a handgun, go to a gun range to learn to fire it, talk to people who you think are too scary. Let things evolve from there.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.

      I just don't know what to do anymore.

      Your IP has been logged. Please remain calm, and await for the authorities in 5,4,3,2....

    7. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. I'm totally for either:
      Not voting
      Or preferably, voting independent.

    8. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      I can see two differences if Romney was the victor. One, the press has been felating Obama since he first ran for office - just ask Hillary on that score. I'm pretty certain that this would have had more traction in our press if Romney was around. Secondly, Romney at least would have had the political luxury of pointing to the prior administration and saying, "I'm not them - I'll correct their errors."

      Instead, Obama is in a position where he has to defend what his administration has been doing for over four years. There's a big difference in the inertia. Romney wouldn't have been as politically vested in preserving the status quo and would have been able to spin it into a political plus by saying "my administration changed things."

    9. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said to my wife the other day... 'I wish Romney or McCain had won. We'd have the same problems, but at least we'd have someone in opposition'.

    10. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote, then vote 1st or 2nd party to see what a wasted vote really is.

      BTW, AC here as I have mod points. Rarely have I had to use so few, because almost every posting is already worth 5. I have never seen such unanimity of opinion on /.

    11. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about lobby to change elections so you can vote for as many candidates as you want, rather than for just one. It's still fair, fairer in fact, and it creates rather different dynamics than the ones we have today.

    12. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people

      Correct. It's not G.W. Bush, it's not Obama, it's the American people.

      I'd say we need a revolution

      Would you prefer a Chinese-style autocracy?

    13. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, humans don't exhibit enough superrationality for a third party to have any chance in a winner-takes-all system. The ruling parties would have to fuse into one for that to happen.

    14. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      You have to start somewhere. If you make enough noise you'll be noticed, just look at the tea party or the gay rights movement. Then you'll influence decisions by the two big parties, but still you shouldn't stop there. There's so much similarity between the two big parties, so many political issues not covered by either and so much apathy toward both, that if there's a determined and well organized alternative it will eventually get a chance. Certainly not doing anything hasn't worked great so much, has it?

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    15. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, but the problem is that "doing something" is from a certain point of view actually detrimental. If you have strong opinions on the nanny state vs theocracy -axis, building any kind of alternative party is likely to fragment the very party you consider as a lesser evil and thus work as a negative vote. This is of course a non-issue if you are completely apathetic towards demopublicans, but people aren't yet there.

    16. Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. by childproof · · Score: 1

      The US managed to get over an area of fear from foreigners without the use of guns or a revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism In the mid- and late 1950s, the attitudes and institutions of McCarthyism slowly weakened. Changing public sentiments heavily contributed to the decline of McCarthyism. Its decline may also be charted through a series of court decisions.

  58. What a bunch of total bullshit by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    There's no reason to believe this guy. Consulting the public is just a PR move... nothing more, nothing less.

  59. Obviously a Marketing Problem! by Aguazul2 · · Score: 2

    We plan to change nothing about what we're doing, but how can we change people's perception of it so that they give us no hassle? Obviously a marketing problem! Invoke the science of persuasive and reassuring words! Obama has really messed up siding with the NSA. Goodbye any good feeling he might have generated abroad for America. It's all gone a bit sour, sorry.

    1. Re:Obviously a Marketing Problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has really messed up siding with the NSA. Goodbye any good feeling he might have generated abroad for America. It's all gone a bit sour, sorry.

      Oh yeah, forget the plight of the Americans themselves. The real thing to worry about here is the perception that Europeans have of America. Their savior Obama turned out bad, so they turn their backs on all Americans.

  60. Freedom of Speech protects Libertarian speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I see from the comment history of that guy is lines after lines of TRUTH. May be you are the one that is the PC police and intolerant.

    1. Re:Freedom of Speech protects Libertarian speech by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      All I see from the comment history of that guy is lines after lines of TRUTH. May be you are the one that is the PC police and intolerant.

      With no respect to the point(which I'm not even sure I've correctly identified, and thus won't address) the phrasing of this post is that of a crazy person. Like just a hint of psychotic. A touch of insane, perhaps. Or maybe garnished with schizophrenia.

    2. Re:Freedom of Speech protects Libertarian speech by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      We can tell it's still you, you know.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Freedom of Speech protects Libertarian speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. HAND.

      P.S. Think about your breathing.

    4. Re:Freedom of Speech protects Libertarian speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you libtards should stay in the your mom's basement. The party is over and it is time for us to clean up the mess you caused.

  61. Help 3rd party get past 5% pop vote by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I guess this is as good a time as any to remind you guys that 5% popular vote for any Presidential candidate gives his/her party total ballot access, federal funds, and most importantly a legitimate voice that no media outlet can ignore without discrediting itself. Due to its popularity, the Libertarian party is the easiest to take across this hurdle, but an effort to organize a 5% vote for any 3rd party can work just as well. It doesn't even matter if you disagree with the party, anything that disrupts the celebrity-focused and soundbite-based political environment will be to your benefit.

    Remember that the winner takes all electoral college system makes your vote in a non-battleground state absolutely worthless. Your deep red/deep blue state is staying that color with or without you. Invest your vote instead into something worthwhile.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Help 3rd party get past 5% pop vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. It's the only way to change this corrupt system without a full-blown, infrastructure-destroying, bloody, protracted revolution.

      Captcha: negators

    2. Re:Help 3rd party get past 5% pop vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Mod up.

  62. Dear Barry: by pla · · Score: 1

    Go fuck yourself.

    Love,
    America.

  63. Was going to post to say exactly that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people" why the hell is my tax dollars going to spy on me.

  64. Targeting Lavabits because of Snowdon is an abuse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs." - Obama.

    Lets see..

    1)Secret courts... check
    2)Snowdon an American.. check
    3)Snowdon has never threatened to blow up anything and is not a terrorist.. check
    3)Govt still sending secret "you cannot tell anyone we sent this" NSA letter to Lavabits to spy and get Snowdon's mail..

    Yep, the govt is in the United States of Amerika is now using secret courts with secret letters to Americans in America to target other Americans that make the govt look bad when breaking the constitution / law..

    Sorry Mr. President, but I see that as an abuse.
    Not only that, it is even futher than that, it is not even behaving 'like' a police state.. it IS a police state..

  65. no, Barry's tortured interpretation of it did by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Show me where in the Patriot act this is authorized.
    The administration is using a clause from the act to pretend it's legal, but the clause they point to really doesn't authorize tracking American's phone calls and emails.

  66. Whoosh! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

    Mitreya was referring to the *other* branches of government, i.e., the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch, plus the 4th branch (investigative reporting). Alas, *NONE* of those other branches are doing their fracking job!

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:Whoosh! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      Why do I always see these posts where it seems like someone is having a completely different conversation from another universe?

    2. Re:Whoosh! by tqk · · Score: 1

      Why do I always see these posts where it seems like someone is having a completely different conversation from another universe?

      Outside of your Mom's basement is not another Universe.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thread order is hard? Try reloading the page.

    4. Re:Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Slashdot folds down some comments, making a grandchild comment look like a child comment. Then people comment as if that's what has happened. The "Parent" link in each comment fixes this, but it's a lot of clicking.

  67. Liar by fredrated · · Score: 1

    I see most people on this thread don't believe the lying douchbag; unfortunately the public is not so smart.

  68. Drava by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drava skrbi za fizino vzgojo ljudstva, posebno mladine, v svrho dviganja narodnega zdravja, narodne, delovne in obrambne sposobnosti.

    Ravna edalje bolj popustljivo, dopua se vsa svoboda.

    Oblast je pri nas ljudska.

  69. Executive orders by operagost · · Score: 1

    For a guy who likes Executive Orders so much, you'd think he would have written one or two here... maybe suspending section 215 entirely for a few months as motivation for pursuing "appropriate reforms".

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  70. A reminder for the POTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

  71. No abuse? Really? by ireallyhateslashdot · · Score: 1

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    Nope, no abuse to be found.

    The link above details how the NSA fed information to the DEA, and if and when there was a court trial resulting from that information, the DEA manufactured a source for the information so that they never had to admit that they got it from the NSA. The DEA called the process of disguising sources "parallel construction". To quote Reuters from the article:

    Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using “parallel construction” may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

    This is an abuse of the legal system, pure and simple. When you're hiding information from the defense, and potentially the judge and prosecution, you've broken the trial system.

    We are seeing abuse, Mr. President.

  72. I suspect he's lying ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because his lips were moving. But it's OK, because Hillary will be A LOT different in 2016. Hope and Change!

    1. Re: I suspect he's lying ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, she wears lipstick.

  73. The meaning of the word transparent by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    When Obama says things like this, people have problems with it because they do not stop to think about the meaning of the word transparent. When Obama uses it regarding government activity there are two relevant parts to the definition.
    First, something that is transparent is something that one can see through. If you can't see through Obama by now, the problem is your eyesight, not with how obvious Obama has been.

    Second, something that is transparent cannot be seen. Obama is working on making it impossible to see what the government is actually doing.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  74. Bullshit by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    So, aside from ignoring the fact that on a weekly if not daily basis there is a news report of these programs resulting in an abuse of liberty, we're just supposed to ignore the fact that the programs' very existence is an abuse?

    There is absolutely zero reason to believe anything Obama says; on the contrary, there is good evidence to support believing the opposite of what he says is true, based entirely on his own record of honesty.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  75. No Domestic Spying - it is WORLDWIDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "No Domestic Spying" - it is WORLDWIDE you fools.
    In political speak, that is telling the truth.

    1. Re: No Domestic Spying - it is WORLDWIDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are abusing the DEA is using NSA data to provide anonymous tips to law enforcement and then dropping charges if the case goes to trial so no one knows about there relationship with the NSA

    2. Re: No Domestic Spying - it is WORLDWIDE by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Why would the DEA reveal the original source of the tips anyway? Once they have the tip they can gather their own data independently or even claim the voice recording or whatever as their own. No need to drop the charges if it goes to trial.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  76. Oh look a website by mvar · · Score: 1

    a new website for citizens to learn about transparency in intelligence agencies

    A website is the absolute best way to give the illusion to your "citizens" that they're in control of something..like with that "We the people" site. Oh yes, people seem to like websites...let them click on "like" or "dislike" buttongs all day long from the comfort of their living rooms and feel they actually participate in the government and you have some happy voters

    1. Re:Oh look a website by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      The only thing even better than a website is if he created the "Ow, my balls" show for us. If we can watch that all day long then nobody will be worth spying on because we won't want to do anything wrong.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  77. This is tiresome by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, they deny the NSA spying allegations. They half-admit the allegations while simultaneously going after the whistleblower full bore. Now, Obama starts speaking of transparency? Where was that transparency this whole time? It's lie after lie after lie.

    1. Re:This is tiresome by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I almost feel like you can replace 'transparency' with 'propaganda' in US government press and it'll read the same.
      It's not transparency if you get to pick and choose what you release.

      They're even adding a new 'transparency official'. Might as well read propaganda officer at this point.

  78. "We can and must be more transparent." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is not the same as: "We will be more transparent."

    A junkie will say things like, "I can and must quit junk."

    An alcoholic will say things like, "I can and must quit drinking."

    Neither of those statements from those individuals are to be trusted — they do not indicate any real plan to change one's behavior.

  79. The Petulant of the United States by Geste · · Score: 1

    This is meaningless. I'll pay attention when he does something concrete and stops acting like a vindictive 8-year-old. For me, that would involve calling "No Harm, No Foul" and the restoration of Snowden's passport. With a little note that says "Gee sorry I screwed up and. Thanks for your gift to the country".

    I don't expect this to happen, as not only has Obama been childishly wrong-headed, he has been incredibly inept and stupid. Rather than letting Snowden amble to Bolivia while pouting and complaining, Obama has to go all Rogue State on us. The minute he effectively downed Morales' plane in Vienna, asylum in Russia became perhaps the only option and he effectively ensured that the despicable Putin would take the opportunity to poke him in the eye. Repeatedly.

    It's one thing if somebody pokes you in the eye, but it's another thing if you hand them the stick.

    Wrong, stupid, inept, and wrong.

    1. Re:The Petulant of the United States by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If you hand them the stick that you've been poking in their eye for decades.

      Gee. Didn't see that one coming, did we...

  80. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by Khashishi · · Score: 2

    They haven't shot anyone ordinary.

  81. We need more encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything should be encrypted, specifically so if you are not privy to the conversation, then you can't see it. End of story.

  82. Obama is a LIAR, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I watched the goddamned conference and I heard Obama make the claim that the NSA
    surveillance programs had not been "abused". Oh REALLY ? I guess maybe little Barry
    Obama doesn't consider the NSA giving intercept info to the DEA to be "abuse".

    Is anyone else sick of this shit like I am ?

    This is not about politics, or about political leanings or "liberals vs. conservatives".
    This is about RIGHT AND WRONG. And you're goddamned right I am yelling,
    because I am very angry indeed.

    1. Re:Obama is a LIAR, period. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Snowden informed us that the NSA had committed billions of counts of illegal wiretapping against people who are innocent. Obama's complicity in these crimes should land him behind bars.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  83. 2 things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 admit to the illegal activity. 2 prosecute those who broke the law

    Without those two there will never be any trust given. You burnt the bridge and it will take a lot of work from the government to earn our trust back.

    Or they can do nothing and we will eventually get used to the constant surveillance like we always do. The government no longer relies on the Constitution to give it it's power, it's all Might is Right from here on out.

  84. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or more like it's saying "We have nukes to wipe any country off the face of the earth. But are you seeing us do that? No." Just because the government has the CAPABILITY of doing something does not mean it IS doing that something. I think that's the biggest problem about this discussion, because there are so many people already assuming the worst.

  85. Wasn't this his platform for President? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear in between him talking about hope and change, he was doing something about transparency... He was even the one pushing for protections for people who leak information about crimes, but then says if you do it about the government it's terrorism. I am honestly surprised we managed to find someone worse than Bush. Is it an option to just not have a President for

  86. ahhhh the love :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is like a relationship, once they cheat on you, forever will the trust between you cease to exist.

    Even IF they are sincere afterwards, you will always have that nagging thought in the back of your head.

    1. Re:ahhhh the love :D by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The government is like a relationship, once they cheat on you, forever will the trust between you cease to exist.

      Even IF they are sincere afterwards, you will always have that nagging thought in the back of your head.

      We The People entered into this relationship right after a particularly bitter divorce, so we had some prenuptial agreements drawn up. Our new partner isn't living up to its part of the agreement and keeps trying to violate the spirit of the prenup and the marriage itself.

  87. Technological solutions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama also endorsed finding technological solutions that will protect privacy regardless of what government agencies want to do.

    Then maybe he should tell FBI to stop planting malware on Tor hidden services such as tormail.org that indiscriminately destroy the privacy of whoever uses them?

  88. Obama can't handle the truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should we believe he's telling the truth this time? He's obviously trying to improve his rating by making empty promises....Sure, it might appear to be more transparent to the media, but he will just further obfuscate their operations.

    captcha: civics

  89. Liar, liar, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But we are talking more like a few dozen times.

  90. Patwalls by xkosh · · Score: 1

    Do us a favor and start using less paywall links.

  91. that's funny by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

    They said it was raining today, but only my leg is wet....

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  92. Metadata? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't believe the meta-data LIE do you? They store EVERYTHING. They did not build the huge data center in Utah with our tax dollars to store metadata....

    "Metadata? Oh, I thought you said Megadata, Mr. President. But now that we have it, would be a shame to waste it, wouldn't it?"

  93. We "Can and Must..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    ... but Won't.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  94. "I don't think Mr. Snowden was a patriot." by jcr · · Score: 1

    Of course he doesn't think so. Obama's idea of a patriot is someone who offers abject submission to the government.

    Snowden is a hero, Obama is a flaming hypocrite.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:"I don't think Mr. Snowden was a patriot." by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I'm not one of those "Obama was born in Kenya, so he isn't American!" wackos . . . but . . .

      Judging by his recent actions . . . "I don't think that Mr. Obama is a patriot."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:"I don't think Mr. Snowden was a patriot." by jcr · · Score: 1

      He's not a patriot, he's an autocrat.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  95. Re:Anyone who believes Obama is in charge is an id by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Funny

    At first, I thought this comment might be a joke mocking the conspiratorially minded

    It's getting tough. I tried to make a comment joke mocking the conspiratorially minded, but all the things I thought of sounded half-serious. I can't pretend to be paranoid anymore, thanks Obama.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  96. "Yes We (S)can!" - Obama campaign slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Yes We (S)can!" - Obama campaign slogan

  97. TIME Man Of The Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Edward J. Snowden.

    Mr. Obama will be so mad he will order TIME to cease publication and DHS to go around the US and confiscate all copies.

  98. Watergate. by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tricky Dick Nixon was hounded into resignation over illegally wiretapping a handful of phone lines at the DNC headquarters back in 1972. The Bush and Obama administrations are each guilty of billions of counts of the same crime. Why the FUCK isn't anyone getting impeached?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Watergate. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Don't know, but I bet I can guess.

      Congressman: "I've got a tough primary coming up. What do I do?"
      NSA: "Here. Publish these emails between your primary challenger and his gay lover."
      Congressman: "The NSA does not spy on ordinary Americans! Think of the children! Terrorists! Pandemics!"

      Repeat with s/Congressman/Senator/g

      And also.

      Senator: "Rein in the Executive? Why would I do that? I'm going to BE the Executive. Then I'm going to retire with a double lifetime pension and the best healthcare your tax dollars can buy. Deliver those pizzas faster, you stinking proles!"

  99. Cowards by TuckerBag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why aren't Google, Apple et. al. doing the same as Lavabit and Silent Circle? They should shut down until they are happy that their customers are happy with what they are doing.

  100. Whistleblower protection "misstatement" by tipo159 · · Score: 1

    My favorite part of the Obama press conference today was when he said that, if Snowden feels that he is a whistleblower, then he is safe because Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Act and extended protection to the intelligence community. Given the increase in the number of whistleblowers that the Obama administration has gone after, I just had to laugh. And I did.

    The Snowden/NSA portion of today's press conference was for people who aren't paying attention to what is going on.

  101. It's Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so ready to believe him that I'm preparing a sharp salute and a "Zieg Heil Obama!" right now.

  102. Dear frogs, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear frogs,

    Chef Obama would like you to know that the water really isn't that much warmer than it was a few minutes ago. Also, the reports of bubbles are greatly exaggerated. The people who reported them are the actual threat, because they are leaking important state secrets.

  103. "Public" advocate for the "secret" court. by Lashat · · Score: 1

    yeah.. that will help.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  104. Soooo ... by jeff13 · · Score: 1

    So on the one hand, the President insists Snowden is a crook while on the other hand promising to end government spying on citizens - which Snowden proved.

    *brain explodes*

  105. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    Sure but what about 3rd parties ? The difference about nukes is that not just any old soldier can just walk right up to a nuke and hit the launch button. There's all kinds of security checks and balances in place to authenticate the identity of the launcher, and the average launch button likely rarely even gets exposure to the human eye. Securing a nuke is probably much easier because its actually tangible; something physical that can be protected by physical means. The NSA on the other hand has created a networked system that makes lots of private information available to lots of different people around the country at lots of different locations with a few simple keystrokes (XKeyScore). Its just data that gets queried. There are probably hackers already hard at work trying to gain unauthorized access to a terminal for it already right as we speak, and for all we know its already been compromised by a third party and just haven't been told about it yet. Or who knows.....perhaps some kind of under-the table deal could take place where someone rich enough could contribute to a politician's next campaign in exchange for access to it. There's other scenarios I'm sure, but anyhow, the point is that if it hasn't happened yet, in time it will at some point by some mode and means. I'd be much happier knowing it didn't exist at all in the first place, so there's nothing there to abuse, just like the good 'ol days.

  106. I had this thought... by flex941 · · Score: 1

    Everywhere there are idiots running their countries. Almost all of them. But you my dear US friends have the Supreme Idiot filling the position.

    Yeah I know, this is definitely trolling, but I had to get this off my chest. I'm sorry, though.

  107. Actions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not what he was saying, he was talking about the government. But this is a case where actions do speak louder than words.

    Except that the actions are pleading the Fifth and make use of their right to remain silent. It's just words. What a pathetically transparent loser.

  108. Capability by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Threat analysts doctrine focuses on capability, not intent.

  109. NSA Firing 90% of Its Sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "transparent" statement comes the same day as the "NSA Firing 90% of Its Sysadmins" news that say that way no more leaks can happen? Seems very contradicting.

  110. To be taken seriously by thereitis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To be taken seriously, he'd have to put Snowden in charge of this new transparency initiative. Obviously that's not going to happen.

    1. Re:To be taken seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only.

      If only O intended to do the right thing. If only O would pardon Edward.

    2. Re:To be taken seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

      As a non-American - PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO THIS THING

  111. More NSA as a Check for the NSA. by NotBorg · · Score: 1

    and there will be a new NSA official dedicated to transparency efforts.

    NSA appointed officials are useless to us.

    --
    I want this account deleted.
  112. It would take a lot of bombs. by a_big_favor · · Score: 0

    The program is still classified, so it does not exist. Just like drones bombing several countries do not really exist.

    How many bombs are being dropped on countries so that they no longer exist?

  113. While Obama is now a busted flush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..the *real* problem, as I see it, remains the lack of credible alternative.

  114. Laying off 90% SysAdmins? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

    Laying off 90% of the Sysadmins AND more transparency? Yeah, they'll be more "transparent" about the programs that we're aware of (which will slowly be phased out and disappear), while an entirely new staff succeeds at creating NEW secret programs that we'll hear about....never. They only need to be transparent about what we already know about (after all, how long has the DEA been cheating the system without getting busted?)...the shit that's secret they get to KEEP secret because nobody is going to ask about what they don't know.
     
      This is just a plan to get the NSA/Government back to the same levels of douchery as they had 10 years ago. Your Freedoms are gone, and gone they will remain.

  115. And don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....pardon Snowden?

  116. Snowden and patriotism by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    While I'm not quite sure how a concerned citizen who exposed an unconstitutional government program at great personal expense is not a patriot, what's of more interest to me what you'd call a political leader who defends unconstitutional government programs.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  117. Your Friendly Neighborhood NSA by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry. Could you lean a little closer to your computer and say that again? Yes, much better. Oh by the way, you've got mustard on your shirt... no, not there, just below the collar. Yeah, perfect.

    Now what was that you were saying about taxpayers? I need to get the transcript right before I email it to the IRS. You should get a letter within 4 to 6 weeks scheduling your surprise audit and anal probing.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  118. DAMAGE CONTROL by Rubinhood · · Score: 1

    This is just damage control in action. PR stuff. Like when a thief is caught, and he wants to talk himself out of the mess.

    Nothing honest has happened yet, and if things go on as they have been, nothing will.

  119. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    captcha:fixing

    Nobody gives a fuck about your goddamned captcha.

  120. Transparency? I'll give you tranparency! by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    The Empire is not wearing any clothes!

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  121. We can and must obey the law by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    There, I said what Mr Obama could not bring himself to say.

    Why is it that these guys actually need to be impeached to be sorry, and then they only feel sorry for themselves?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  122. Easy to say that now by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Obama on Surveillance: "We Can and Must Be More Transparent"

    ...now that we've been caught.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  123. The Constitution is just a piece of paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the worse offense is that the US government is compelling its citizens to spy on each other and abridging their First Amendment free speech right to complain about it without due process using all three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The checks and balances have failed. The US President has come before the world and said as much - and he is a professor of constitutional law. As much as any run-of-the-mill tyrranny the US is no longer about the consent of the governed, but about raw force and power. Speak out, go to prison. The noble experiment is over.

    I propose that we all sit around whining about it.

  124. Similar cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The troll comment by 'PhuckIndian' was hidden from view, of course. 'SpaceLifeForm' responded to 'i kan reed' assuming he was referring to the next highest up visible post by 'Mitreya':

    Ah, if only there were some other branches of the government that were tasked with supervising and controlling the executive branch. Too bad we don't have any.

    This incorrectly responding to hidden postings two (or more) levels up is the common cause that has left you baffled.

  125. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Or more like it's saying "We have nukes to wipe any country off the face of the earth. But are you seeing us do that? No." Just because the government has the CAPABILITY of doing something does not mean it IS doing that something

    It is absolutely not comparable. Nuking another country has serious and immediately obvious consequences. All the threats that NSA poses are clandestine - blackmailing a politician, industrial espionage, etc. Just look at the Special Operations Division at the DEA which laundered NSA-provided intel via "parallel construction" making it impossible for any defendants to have a fair trial.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  126. Dont worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be happy! Football season starts soon, so you can forget about all this troubling stuff for another year.

  127. Every 5th visitor gets a "Virus Scan" for free! by Qubit · · Score: 2

    There will also be a new website for citizens to learn about transparency in intelligence agencies

    Whenver I visit one of the intelligence agency websites, my webcam light turns on and it won't turn off until I reboot my computer :(

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  128. Obama = liar by stenvar · · Score: 1

    The guy has been in charge of these programs for more than four years, has known about them since the Bush era, and promised to shut them down. The only reason he is "proposing" to do something now is because it's blowing up in his face, and to distract from all his other scandals. And you can bet that his proposals will change nothing.

  129. Are you even listening to yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must be more transparent, but we must also flout international law and act like a humongous dick on the world stage when anyone actually has the audacity to be transparent.

    Obama's only remaining trump card is being better than his opposition. Which isn't exactly a good score to beat right now.

  130. We Can And Must Be More Transparent by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Now that we've been caught. You know how it is, you try to covertly monitor all human communications and some goat-fucker has to go and spill the beans! This is why we can't have nice things! What was I saying again? Hey is this mic on?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  131. Government Contractors by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    Regarding the massive shift of systems and services, including surveillance, to private contractors? A friend of mine with inside knowledge of the intelligence services pointed out something very important...

    Government agencies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight committees.

    Private companies are not.

    They also pointed out that even if a certain bit of information is in the possession of a government agency, if it was collected and/or held by a private contractor, that is often used as an excuse to not fulfill a FIFA request.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Government Contractors by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Government contractors ARE subject to FOIA requests. In fact there is a whole sub industry where contractors issue FOIA requests to each other attempting to get competitive advantages.

      http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=3&id=6058

    2. Re:Government Contractors by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Then perhaps I should ammend my observations to...

      "Government contractors are not subject to FOIA requests, unless they come from another contractor with sufficient financial resources and existing contracts, who can cause significant financial pain to the government, should the government ignore the request out of hand."

      --
      [End Of Line]
  132. Yes, Sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to be more transparent. I will install cameras in our house so you can better watch us. Thank you, mein Führer.

  133. I think he's confused by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between "transparent" and "invisible", Barack. We want the first. You appear to want the second.

  134. "Seeing" by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    Four months ago we didn't see this NSA datamining to begin with. Just because we don't "see" it doesn't mean it isn't actually happening.

    Going on prime time TV and constantly repeating "Trust me on this" isn't going to get him very far. After all, why are these (supposed) changes so needful now and not four months ago? If we were to take Obama and the intelligence committees at their words, the only thing that has changed in these programs in the past four months is that we know about them, so why are these "changes" necessary now?

  135. Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    done

  136. Proper context by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs.

    And that way ends Obama his speech at the National Federation of the Blind

  137. No, it WON'T go on...civilization will crash by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    He ran on "we are going to be the most transparent administration in history" and then proceeded to be one of the most corrupt, opaque, anti-Constitutional administrations, ever (despite him being a Constitutional lawyer - go figure).

    Apparently, he learned the Constitution so that he could become an expert in subverting it.

    One would hope all the naive idiots who ran around like children at Christmas believing that they were going to change the world campaigning and voting for him would learn from this and become better and more demanding citizens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen and neither will the old-guard become less party-affiliated and more principle-oriented.

    This is an endless cycle that will go on.

    No, actually, it won't go on. The history of human civilization is one of empires rising and then falling, with periods in between, euphemistically referred to as "dark ages", where the vast majority of human knowledge is lost. We only came out of our last Dark Ages about 400 years ago. (And before that was another major civilization, commonly referred to as Atlantis, which crashed so hard that most people don't even believe it ever existed. But the evidence exists in various places around the globe...mostly stone edifices that can't be constructed with current technology, but that date to more than 12,000 years ago. We didn't discover agriculture 9,000 years ago -- we rediscovered agriculture after a Dark Age that lasted 3,000 years.)

    There is nothing that says our corrupt, incompetent civilization will continue to exist. As the old saying goes, if something cannot possibly continue...it won't.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:No, it WON'T go on...civilization will crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (And before that was another major civilization, commonly referred to as Atlantis, which crashed so hard that most people don't even believe it ever existed. But the evidence exists in various places around the globe...mostly stone edifices that can't be constructed with current technology, but that date to more than 12,000 years ago. We didn't discover agriculture 9,000 years ago -- we rediscovered agriculture after a Dark Age that lasted 3,000 years.)

      You started off so well, then you went into full on crazy mode. Please, cite a source on this, I'd love a laugh.

  138. NYPD cannibal cop by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Obama has no idea why ordinary people would be worried about their data being stored and ignored forever. I'm not sure I understand it myself.

    So you're fine with the NYPD cannibal cop that abused a restricted law-enforcement database?

    Do you really think he'll be the only one that ever abuses this information?

    I can't even fathom your faith in the goodness of people.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  139. FBHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all...

  140. The POTUS is a Constitutional lawyer by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    The President is a Constitutional lawyer, and therefore, an expert in the fact that it's just a goddamn piece of paper.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  141. Stalin. by ulatekh · · Score: 2

    Tricky Dick Nixon was hounded into resignation over illegally wiretapping a handful of phone lines at the DNC headquarters back in 1972. The Bush and Obama administrations are each guilty of billions of counts of the same crime. Why the FUCK isn't anyone getting impeached?

    Perhaps this quote from Joseph Stalin will provide illumination:

    "A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  142. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    That's like saying, it is OK for the government to keep a loaded gun pointed at the head of every citizen because they haven't shot anyone.

    Without a silencer. He said "What you're not seeing", not "What isn't happening".

  143. Not a troll by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    We're sorry too.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  144. That's a lot of disgruntled sysadmins...uh oh by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Well, sure...Snowden was a sysadmin, therefore sysadmins are bad. Sounds like typical managerial "logic" to me.

    Can you imagine the chaos that will be sown by all those disgruntled syadmins, right before they get fired? Whether in the form of logic bombs, or further disclosure of secret illegal practices? I'm practically giddy thinking about it.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:That's a lot of disgruntled sysadmins...uh oh by fazey · · Score: 1

      I sure hope so. He thinks it will make less whistleblowers lol...

  145. Bunch of hippie crap by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Whether or not any of it is valid, no advanced state of consciousness is going to overcome the simple truth of the following quote from Poor Richard's Almanac:

    "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  146. Help me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    four actions the administration is undertaking

    I'm getting dizzy from all the spin...

    1). “Pursue appropriate reforms” - Political speak for "I'm going to do nothing."

    2). Create a public advocate to argue in front of the secret court - Political speak for "This sounds good, but will do nothing."

    3). Create a website detailing what the NSA does–and does not–collect on Americans and foreigners. - Political speak for "read this prepared statement from an agency who's managers have already been caught repeatedly lying to Congress, the courts, the American people, and the world."

    4). Create an independent agency that reviews cybersecurity processes and produces timely reports. - Political speak for "this statement says nothing and will create another bloated government bureaucracy that does the same."

  147. Internet Kill Switch by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Remember this?

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  148. Obamacare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ah shit got caught with my skirt down, what to do now? Fuck it lets pretend to go transparent that ought to shut the peasants up for a while".

  149. 4 Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Job creation done right!

  150. All this outrage, it's so outrageous! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And come Monday, after your weekend of hate, you will go back to your little jobs, polishing door knobs and packaging Twinkies.. And come November, 98% of you will vote for the same old shit... And the day after you will be back here bitching about what you just voted for. La la la la life goes on... Amusing it may be, but it's just another rerun.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  151. Re:Anyone who believes Obama is in charge is an id by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Go with cynical instead. It's easier to get a chuckle and doesn't mind if it turns out to be serious.

  152. Dear Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you, asshole.

  153. Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the leadership we need. Does anyone believe that if Teddy Kennedy were still around he would have
    let the President behave like this.

  154. Re:"What you're not seeing is people actually abus by sjames · · Score: 1

    Of course we're not seeing it, the whole program is designed to minimize the evidence when it is abused.

  155. In the USA by Max_W · · Score: 1

    the Transparency watches you.

    (sorry could not resist after all that "in soviet Russia").

  156. Secret Evidence by Baldur_of_Asgard · · Score: 2

    Even in the "non-secret" courts, many people are being convicted on secret evidence.

    Specifically, a huge number of people are being convicted of possession of child pornography, yet no one except the police and prosecutors are allowed to see the evidence.

    I have heard from numerous sources that many convictions have the number of images exaggerated - for instance, 40 images became over 600 images - and even the defense attorneys won't question this lest they be seen as being "soft" on possession of pictures. The quality of the images also appear to be exaggerated - in rare cases where some of the evidence has come to light, it has turned out that some images deemed worthy of conviction included pictures of fully dressed teenaged cheerleaders giving a public performance, cartoons of a girl whose loose swimsuit revealed a nipple, and so forth.

    More commonly, the images that secure a conviction are ostensibly legal images of child models or simple nudes. In a current series of cases men in the U.S. are being convicted of possession of nudist videos which a U.S. Federal Court has previously found to be perfectly legal. (The AZOV cases.)

    There apparently is now also a large sub-category of actual child pornography (I am told it is about two fifths) that consists of children, on webcams or otherwise, producing pictures of themselves - mostly nude or masturbating. Despite the fact that we know that these are the sorts of images often earning convictions, prosecutors and law enforcement routinely describe all of these images as "child abuse imagery" and "images of sadistic rape". Of course, no one who is not a prosecutor or in law enforcement is allowed to see this evidence to judge for themselves, so of course we must simply take the word of these proven liars on faith. Yes, they lied about all those other cases involving so-called "child pornography" - but honest, they aren't lying this time.

    I recently came across a comment from a prisoner (who committed real crimes) concerned about the safety of his children when they visit him in prison, because forty percent of his fellow inmates are "pedophiles" - which most likely means they were convicted for possession of pictures, regardless of their actual sexual orientation or deeds. The percentage of prisoners being held for possession of pictures, based on secret evidence, is apparently a large and growing portion of the prison population. It seems that this sort of conviction is intended to replace the convictions for drug crimes that are beginning to dwindle as the public is becoming aware of damage done by the War on Drugs. Naturally the law enforcement community prefers this type of prisoner as they are less dangerous to warehouse than other populations, being generally peaceful and non-violent - and when the public becomes wise to this they will begin warehousing undocumented immigrants. Whatever is required to allow private prisons and public prison guard unions to profit.

    All this can be done because the evidence is kept secret from the public - with anyone who sees the evidence in danger of being sent to prison themselves, and then be put on a public registry for life and prevented from getting most jobs and even from living in many areas.

    All of this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that consensual sex between adults and children is harmful to children. (See Rind et al (1998) - the only scientific study ever condemned by Congress.) Of course, societal reaction to adult-child sex, which often includes forcing children to testify against the people they love most in the world, often has dire consequences. Some children have even committed suicide after being forced to testify against their lover.

    Clearly secret evidence is something that can not be tolerated any more than secret courts.

  157. Lawyerspeak, Counseltongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."

    Given alarm bells don't go off if someone listens to content without a warrant, i.e. no physical mechanism to prevent, much less track this, how would he know?

    Uh, that's what he said: "What you're not seeing". He did not say "What isn't happening". He did not even say "What I'm not seeing" or "What we're not seeing". He's a lawyer. The principal art of a lawyer is to shape the perception of the world. Obama's message to the administration is "you continue doing what you're good at, whatever that may be, and I'll sell it".

    It's time the U.S. got an engineer as president for a change again. The principal art of an engineer is to shape the world.

  158. Not so fast there ... by golodh · · Score: 2
    Counter to what you seem to think, there are legal provisions for the government to tap into communications between US citizens.

    Installing tap rooms in telephone switches and internet exchanges isn't illegal in and by itself. Tapping the lot and temporarily storing it isn't technically illegal either, as it's only a step to make traffic accessible to scrutiny.

    Automatically scanning all such traffic for keywords or patterns of keywords or patterns of communication that may point to terrorist activity probably isn't illegal either.

    Only the very last step, taking the data generated on domestic traffic by the electronic dragnet and having it looked at by NSA analysts may violate the law. May, because again there are circumstances that warrant inspection outright, such as a court warrant, or establishing that at least one of the parties engaged in domestic communication is also communicating with a target outside the US.

    That's because you can't sensibly fence it off. US citizens have a way of communicating abroad and then turning around and communicating domestically.

    So there is so much grey territory here that one should think trice before shouting that it's "illegal".

    And even in the (unlikely) event that the courts and the House could be sold on doing something that harmful to national security there are ways of tapping into domestic communications (the "last step") that don't involve NSA analysts: just share the take and ask e.g. the Brits to sift through it.

    Sorry, but wholesale Internet and Email surveillance are here to stay. Just as they are in China, Russia, France, the UK and lots of other places I don't know of. And why? Because the Internet has developed into the mainstream of human communication and interaction for any distance beyond one's immediate physical surroundings. Governments simply can't ignore that. Which is why "laws" will be (re-)interpreted, (re-)formulated, or adapted outright to allow it.

  159. Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about your promise about closing that prison in Cuba. You know. Guantanamo. Anotehr of your promises. Pffft.

  160. Perhaps Obama can be transparent about Benghazi by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the Obama Administration has been "less than transparent" (as in, unbelievably obstructive) to the Congressional investigation to the attack on Benghazi on 9/11. Besides the killed Ambassadors and SEALs, there were several dozen survivors but the Obama Administration started by withholding the names of these survivors, and then changing the names they did provide, and then saying things like the Marine Lt Col in charge could not be found as he was retired but it turned out he was still serving (wtf?). Then the Obama Administration blamed a jailed a filmmaker for the attack, but had drones overhead at the time and knew immediately that it was not a protest about the film. Would be nice if Obama actually delivered on the transparency he promised (or actually, anything, despite the media running cover again).

  161. Re:Anyone who believes Obama is in charge is an id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't too long ago that anyone saying the gummint is watching everyone would be considered a crazy conspiracy theorist too.

  162. Hoping for more transparency - you mean invisible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, what's more transparent than invisible? That's what he's really saying...

  163. Transparency for who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He really wants the American People to be transparent to the government, not the other way around.

  164. What scandals, Mr. President? by jigawatt · · Score: 1

    You've been saying all this time that they were "phoney scandals".

  165. What an ass by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    The only thing he wants transparent is the life of every single person on earth except him.

  166. Transparency = LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So said the Chief of NO transparency. Obama Care Back door black mail and shady deals. Black Caucus behind close door meeting with Obama. Racist

  167. Obama is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Transparent"

    What do Obama's school records look like? Surely as an American he has records of his years at school in America right?

    Stop drinking coolaid you dumb Americans

  168. Obama: "Phone Spying Not Abused, Will Continue" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Obama says phone spying not abused, will continue

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama made it clear Friday he has no intention of stopping the daily collection of American phone records. And while he offered "appropriate reforms," he blamed government leaks for creating distrust of his domestic spying program.

    In an afternoon news conference, the president acknowledged the domestic spying has troubled Americans and hurt the country's image abroad. But he called it a critical counterterrorism tool.

    "I am comfortable that the program currently is not being abused," Obama said. "I am comfortable that if the American people examined exactly what was taking place, how it was being used, what the safeguards were, that they would say, 'You know what? These folks are following the law.'"

    Because the program remains classified, however, it's impossible for Americans to conduct that analysis beyond the assurances his administration has given.

    "Understandably, people would be concerned," the president said. "I would be, too, if I weren't inside the government."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Obama: "Phone Spying Not Abused, Will Continue" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Carol Lee, WSJ: "Can you understand, though, why some people might not trust what you're saying right now about wanting to --"

      Obama: "No, I can't."

      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/09/210574114/transcript-president-obamas-news-conference

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  169. Ordinary Persons Rebuttal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not interested in spying on ordinary Americans... It's just that they have to spy on all of us to make sure that we are not doing anything out of the ordinary.

  170. I was going to end the patriot act.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. but then i took an arrow to the knee!

  171. Quote by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary. They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn, count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in." --Alexander Warbucks