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.
Nuff said.
Except that we all know he's actually talking about the PEOPLE being made more transparent, NOT the Government.
"The ruling class will pretend to be transparent though. Ummm, hey, look, here's some Khardshian TV show crap, forget I said anything."
"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?
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.
BULL SHIT.
at all.
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.
My confidence in this actually accomplishing anything is zero.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
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.
Obama is part of the abuse.
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.
The Government watches the people, the people watch the government. Everyone's happy. A world with fewer secrets is a safer world.
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.
"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
Sounds like he wants to spend a lot of resources on explaining to people why mass surveillance is needed rather than stopping it.
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.
Transparency is not the issue. Constitutionality is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Wouldn't it be easier and far cheaper... TO STOP SPYING ON THE TAXPAYERS!
I know... totally insane... but there it is.
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.
I think I just felt everybody in America groan, roll their eyes, and flip him the bird.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
And what country do you suggest we use?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
> "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.
"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."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
Were his pants on fire?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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.
His mouth is open.
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.
> "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.
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.
I think he means, "What you're not seeing is *the* people actually abusing these programs."
He's lying. What about the DEA and IRS.
what's the point? you can be compelled to provide decryption, and quite severely punished if you do not
Lets see it happen
What's wrong with applying a court warrant to wire tap a suspect?
"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."
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?
weinersmith
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."
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").
There's no reason to believe this guy. Consulting the public is just a PR move... nothing more, nothing less.
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.
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
Go fuck yourself.
Love,
America.
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.
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.
I see most people on this thread don't believe the lying douchbag; unfortunately the public is not so smart.
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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
"No Domestic Spying" - it is WORLDWIDE you fools.
In political speak, that is telling the truth.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
They haven't shot anyone ordinary.
Read the first part of your second sentence.
You can always say you forgot. How can they prove otherwise?
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.
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.
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
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But we are talking more like a few dozen times.
Do us a favor and start using less paywall links.
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.
... but Won't.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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."
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."
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."
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.
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.
yeah.. that will help.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
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*
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.
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.
Threat analysts doctrine focuses on capability, not intent.
To be taken seriously, he'd have to put Snowden in charge of this new transparency initiative. Obviously that's not going to happen.
and there will be a new NSA official dedicated to transparency efforts.
NSA appointed officials are useless to us.
I want this account deleted.
..the *real* problem, as I see it, remains the lack of credible alternative.
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.
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!
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.
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.
The Empire is not wearing any clothes!
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
Obama on Surveillance: "We Can and Must Be More Transparent"
...now that we've been caught.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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]
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.
There's a difference between "transparent" and "invisible", Barack. We want the first. You appear to want the second.
"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?
When/if possible, use your own servers. Here are some suggestions
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Remember this?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
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!”
Go with cynical instead. It's easier to get a chuckle and doesn't mind if it turns out to be serious.
Of course we're not seeing it, the whole program is designed to minimize the evidence when it is abused.
the Transparency watches you.
(sorry could not resist after all that "in soviet Russia").
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.
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.
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).
You've been saying all this time that they were "phoney scandals".
The only thing he wants transparent is the life of every single person on earth except him.
Obama says phone spying not abused, will continue
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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
"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
Casteism