Slashdot Mirror
Tech Leaders Push Back Against Obama's Efforts To Divert Discussion From NSA
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Guardian reports that while President Obama tried to portray a meeting with tech leaders as a wide-ranging discussion of broader priorities including ways of improving the functionality of the troubled health insurance website Healthcare.gov, senior executives from Apple, Yahoo, Google, Comcast, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and Netflix said they were determined to keep the discussion focused on the NSA. 'We are there to talk about the NSA,' said one executive who was briefed on the company's agenda before the event. After meeting Obama and vice president Joe Biden for two-and-a-half hours, the companies issued a one-line statement. 'We appreciated the opportunity to share directly with the president our principles on government surveillance that we released last week and we urge him to move aggressively on reform.' Many of the senior tech leaders had already made public their demand for sweeping surveillance reforms in an open letter that specifically called for a ban on the kind of bulk data collection that a federal judge ruled on Monday was probably unlawful. Obama seemed sympathetic to the idea of allowing more disclosure of government surveillance requests by technology companies, according to a tech industry official who was briefed on the meeting. Marissa Mayer brought up concerns about the potentially negative impact that could be caused if countries, such as Brazil, move forward with legislation that would require service providers to ensure that data belonging to a citizen of a certain country remain in the country it originates, the official said. That would require technology companies to build data centers in each country — a costly problem for American Internet companies. The decision by the tech giants to press their case in such a public and unified way poses a problem for the White House. The industry is an increasingly influential voice in Washington, a vital part of the US economy and many of its most successful leaders are prominent Democratic political donors."
He did not hijack your meeting.
They are not accusing him of hijacking the meeting. They are accusing him of spinning (or lying about) what happened in the meeting. I accept that Obama doesn't care much about the rights of the citizens, but he needs to understand that pervasive surveillance is also bad for business. When these companies move their data centers abroad, the jobs go with them. More and more people just don't want to do business with American tech companies. This is just as stupid as the encryption embargo that destroyed thousands of American jobs back in the 1990s.
He did not hijack your meeting. It was always his. Get over yourself.
"If I'm here and you're here, doesn't that make it our time?" -- Jeff Spicoli
If anyone needs to get over himself it is the President. He is not a dictator. If he wants the support of the people he needs to listen to the people. If he wants the support of industry he needs to listen to industry. The people and industry are not here to do his bidding. He works for us.
He did not hijack your meeting. It was always his. Get over yourself.
Wrong, the President is to serve the people. It's not about what he wants, it's about what the people want.
The President might be in charge, but it's only because he was voted in. His responsibility is to the citizens of the USA, not to himself.
Be seeing you...
Fuck that. In my book respect has to be earned, even for the President.
And the man currently in the job never earned my respect. The man previously in the job earned my respect, but then he lost it. The one before him didn't have my respect initially, but ironically looking at his whole record and past his indiscretions he's earned some respect for what he did with the job.
But these latest two Presidents; in the end, neither is worthy of my respect.
Voting in the United States is, indeed, heavily broken. You should still vote. Just don't vote for a Democrat or Republican.
Nope.
Not voting reveals the system for what it is: violence concealed by the division of labor.
Voting in an election is as moral as bidding in a slave auction. In both cases participation gives both processes the illusion of legitimacy they do not deserve.
And by not voting you're electing not to be a slave just to the system, but also a slave to everyone around you. You think you've made some point. You have not. You've only surrendered the little power you have to take none at all.
And you've done so voluntarily, which is the real kicker. You think you're standing up to anyone? People who don't vote is exactly what corruption wants. You've voluntarily given up your rights to those you claim to stand up against. And you don't even realize you're playing right into their game.