Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Privacy Reform Panel Will Report To ... the NSA
FuzzNugget writes "No, you didn't just stumble upon The Onion by mistake. Ars Technica reports that Obama's 'reform' panel will report directly to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to Congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications. But is anyone really surprised?"
It's up to us to contact our representatives and let them know that they can't just sweep this under the rug like usual. There has to be consequences.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Oh, screw you. How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap, and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Campaign finance reform would go along way to changing the system.
This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
"...but, but, but, *BUSH*!"
Seriously, in your mind, at which point does Obama become responsible for his own actions?
It's not like the 2012 election was GWB vs. Obama.
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. In the past 4 presidential elections, the only time a 3rd party candidate managed to get more than 1% of the popular vote (yet still 0% of the electoral votes) was in 2000 when Nader had 2.78% of the popular vote and if a fraction of his votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush wouldn't have made it to the white house.
No it won't. It will do nothing. The voter has to learn to resist propaganda, and think critically. Check the records, not the campaign speeches. Campaign 'reform' is a bullshit shell game, just like term limits. They will find another way to launder the money.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is that they live in a world so far removed from our own - in which civil rights, due process and conflicts of interest are active concerns - to such an extent that doing something like this "ain't no thang". Disturbing.
Frankly, they could have at least pretended to give a shit.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
"His name was James Damore."
You could go back just a bit further to see an even greater impact that a 3rd party had on the election. GWB's father lost his 2nd term due to Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote, which arguably would have gone to GHWB & led to his reelection.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
...the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications.
Damn /. editors, you misspelled "arguably". The proper spelling is D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
James Clapper: "No, sir"
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly."
That is not the truth, but not the whole truth. That is a flat-out lie, told under oath before a Senatorial committee.
You can cower and boot-lick your way through life if you want. Me, I want to live free.
Hence the Anonymous Cowardice.
I'm tired of this 'arguably' and 'allegedly' garbage. James Clapper has already apologized for lying to Congress. HE LIED TO CONGRESS AND HE ADMITTED IT. There is no more 'arguable' or 'allegedly' any more. It is misinformation to keep taking black and white concrete facts and use gray words in their place. It's like there's a hidden agenda somewhere to try to keep people confused on the simplest of facts.
Therefore, Obama appointed the man in charge of the NSA, who already lied to Congress, to investigate possible reforms for the NSA. But then again, Obama also lied about the extent of the NSA's surveillance. The day after Snowden's original revelations, Obama stated that they only collect 'meta' data - but not actual phone calls. Then, recently, he states that they make copies of everything but do not look at it. Therefore, Obama's original statement was a lie.
But that's how our country works.. Obama can lie directly to our faces. James Clapper can lie directly to Congress. And the media will say 'they may have lied.'
--- We need more Ron Paul!
The only reason the distant third candidate has no realistic hope of winning is due to you, personally, and people that share your mentality.
I hope you're satisfied with choosing between two sides of the same coin.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.