Slashdot Mirror


Obama Announces Surveillance Reforms

In a speech today, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes for the operations of the country's intelligence agencies. He says the current program will end "as it currently exists," though most of the data collection schemes will remain intact. However, the data collected in these sweeps will not be stored by the U.S. government, instead residing with either the communications providers or another third party. (He pointed out that storing private data within a commercial entity can have its own oversight issues, so the attorney general and intelligence officials will have to figure out the best compromise.) In order for the NSA to query the database, they will need specific approval from a national security court. Obama also announced "new oversight" to spying on foreign leaders, and an end to spying on leaders of friendly and allied countries. Further, decisions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will be annually reviewed for declassification. A panel advocating for citizen privacy will have input into the FISC. There will be chances to national security letters: they will no longer have an indefinite secrecy period. Companies will be able to disclose some amount of information about the NSLs they receive, something they've been asking for. Another change is a reduction in the number of steps from suspected terrorists that phone data can be gathered. Instead of grabbing all the data from people three steps away, it's now limited to two.

213 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. So the hell what? by robinsonne · · Score: 1

    Except that everyone is a suspect...so gee I feel so much better now.

    1. Re:So the hell what? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that. I have my own problems with the FISA court system but at least it does add an additional party looking over the requests and the small size of the court reduces the amount of work that can be done requiring the NSA to actually focus their work to real suspects. This change is good for American freedom from a surveillance state and it's probably good for our security as well as the analysts will be looking at sets of data with a higher signal to noise ratio.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:So the hell what? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:So the hell what? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since they claim they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now

      FTFY

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:So the hell what? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that."

      Sorry, but no. The FISA court already approved all that in the past. So why would this make any difference?

      This is a joke. A distinction without a difference. You know very well that Obama has been in favor of expanding surveillance -- because he DID. This is just another of his many lies. He's pretending to address the issue without making any real, substantive changes.

    5. Re:So the hell what? by rlwhite · · Score: 2

      There's already been a report of one of the FISA judges asking for more funding to expand the court if this kind of change goes through. We can't count on the bandwidth remaining small.

    6. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. The FISA court already approved all that in the past. So why would this make any difference?

      Because... hope and change!

    7. Re:So the hell what? by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see any of the "changes" they've made or have talked about making as protecting American freedom from a surveillance state. All I see is Washington trying to sweep things under the rug and bury things deeper.

      We made a change, won't you please forget it ever happened now? OOooooh look over there!!! Shiny!!!

    8. Re:So the hell what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

      Just as happy as the families of every detainee released when Gitmo closed five years ago, and the families of troops that all came home from Afghanistan and Iraq five years ago when we ended those wars.

    9. Re: So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I calculate the odds that this Politician is lying about this to be 100%.

    10. Re:So the hell what? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, they at least improve the marketing aspects. Nothing else will change anyways, the surveillance-state is already established.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:So the hell what? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of pre-signed forms? The FISA court is worthless.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Informative

      what annoys me about this is obama is focusing on the phone data collection stuff. but what about PRISM, and the L3 infrastructure stuff, the new text message stuff (which is notable because it's content, not metadata), and all that jazz. he says the NSA's stuff is legal and he'll make a few adjustments, but he's ignoring all the ILLEGAL things they do. BTDubs the full text of the speech is at NYTimes.

    13. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I think we can count on bandwidth being the bottleneck if they eliminate some of the shortcuts / workarounds. Human endeavors grow linearly. It takes twice as much manpower to process twice as many NSLs. Computer stuff can grow exponentially or geometrically. so if you make the review process more rigorous then the growth in computer stuff will be constrained by human linear growth limits.

    14. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

      The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):

      From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government, according to annual Justice Department reports to Congress.

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616

      You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    15. Re:So the hell what? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I believe that the solution will involve dividing the nation into precincts on the lines established by state and local voting. Each precinct will have have their own FISA judge assigned.

      What a safer country, will America be, than it was in former days, when known as land of free.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    16. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I won't be happy until the senior NSA officials responsible for these programs are charged criminally and given public trials. With great power comes great responsibility and the people in charge at the NSA have forgotten that. They need a harsh reminder to prevent this from happening again.

      "We've changed just enough to mollify the public outrage" isn't acceptable and won't deter future transgressions.

    17. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're reading is FAIL --- has Gitmo ended(1)? Is Afghanistan over(2)? Did Iraq linger and linger(3)? A passing familiarity with recent events makes it sarcasm as obvious as a cement truck barreling down the freeway.

      (1) Obama did have a plan to close the Gitmo facility, and transfer its practices to the Thomson SuperMax in Illinois, aka Gitmo North. Anyone who can't see the how Obama used the word "close" there in a deceptive manner needs to take some reading comprehension courses. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/

      (2) Obama at one point tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over GWB's numbers. That's the opposite of ending it. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/

      (3) Obama quit Iraq only when the Iraqi government wouldn't extend SOFA. SOFA prevents US soldiers from being tried for crimes committed in Iraq, in Iraqi courts. When Iraq wouldn't extend it and thereby extend the official troop presence, Obama pulled out and everyone gave him credit for peace, when really, he merely failed to make more war.
      http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/23/obamas-revisionist-history-on-ending-the-iraq-war-a-lesson-from-the-3rd-presidential-debate/

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    18. Re:So the hell what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I take it you're unaware that Gitmo is still in operation, and that we still have troops in Afghanistan?

      Admittedly, the troops are out of Iraq (on GWB's timetable, not Obama's)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:So the hell what? by almitydave · · Score: 2

      No, no, no, this proves that 99.97% of the government's applications are totally reasonable and responsible. The system works!

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    20. Re:So the hell what? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, only bad guys are worried about this sort of thing. The government can never and has never done anything wrong, so people have nothing to fear... if they're not doing anything the government doesn't like.

    21. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      true about Gitmo not closing, but some people have gotten out and I'm sure their familys are happy. for Iraquistan, the troop tour of duty is only two years, so there's always troops coming home and it makes people happy. so while people are happy, the wars are still warring.

    22. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 1

      I get the sarcasm, but sadly, there are people who will believe that as fact despite evidence such as that general warrant known as the Verizon Order. It's important to ask, if the Verizon Order was in the rubber stamp pile -- what the hell was in those 11 that got rejected?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    23. Re:So the hell what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      for Iraquistan, the troop tour of duty is only two years, so there's always troops coming home and it makes people happy.

      You know what makes people less happy, though? When the troops get sent out for another deployment fighting a war that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    24. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      they can choose to reinlist or not. it's a volunteer army. except for the commissioned officers obv, but they chose that as their career.

    25. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 1

      yep. ;-) It never fails does it?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    26. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what annoys me about this is obama is focusing on the phone data collection stuff.

      That is deliberate. He'll be seen doing something about that NSA spying that's been in the news without actually doing anything meaningful.

    27. Re:So the hell what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Until they find some way to automate the court. Batch warrants, perhaps?

    28. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      isn't that the point of this whole discussion, to make things more rigorous so there aren't workarounds? and besides, if they make a system to handle the current workload, how will that scale in 6mo when the workload doubles, then 6mo when the workload doubles again. or in 2 years when it is 16 fold.

    29. Re:So the hell what? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Too bad we can't choose to not spend our taxes on it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:So the hell what? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      "We've changed just enough to mollify the public outrage"

      Sadly, I would say it's even less than that. More like "We've claimed that we've changed...honest injun."

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    31. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically, SMS text messages are classified as metadata since they travel over the operation channels of the cell networks.

    32. Re:So the hell what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I have my own problems with the FISA court system but at least it does add an additional party looking over the requests

      Assuming, of course, that the FISA court isn't just rubber-stamping everything instead of actually trying to be sure they're following the law.

      And I'm not convinced they've been doing anything other than saying "sure, go ahead".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    33. Re:So the hell what? by nevermindme · · Score: 1

      3. Actually Iraq was more than ready to sign SOFA arranged per the SEC DEF at the time. Yet another failure of the charmed Clinton/Obama state department. The White House dragged its feet through the election because any troop number would have caused a loss of votes in swing states because it would state clearly that US solders bleeding for IRAQ was not over... and as of 2014 it is a fight between the same three factions as it was the day after Bagdad Bob was knocked off the air less the US/UK traffic cops.

    34. Re:So the hell what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      So it's ok that we're fighting a bullshit war, because the soldiers are voluntary and are all there because they want to be there and also because they don't want to be brought up on federal charges for desertion or refusing an order. Is that what you're saying?

      What about my brother-in-law, for example. He is a highly trained and highly skilled Marine who is very good at rendering explody things harmless. The government has spent a lot of money making sure that he knows how to do his job, and can do it well. If you give him a bomb, he can remove the trigger. He's served several deployments and has a family. He would rather not go back to Afghanistan. He's inquired with several other agencies, including local police forces. The local police forces tell him that he gets to start at the bottom of the ladder, raking in around $25k per year patrolling a beat, and after 2 years of that he would be eligible to move into the SWAT team as an EOD tech. But he can't afford to spend 2 years making $25k and not using his skills, only to be told later whether he even has a job. He has a family to take care of, after all. So even though the Marines have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars training him, there's nowhere he can even transition to in order to continue his life outside of the military on the same level. Re-enlistment is his only option if he wants to support his family. He doesn't want to fight a BS war, and he doesn't want to enter the bottom ranks of another agency, so what exactly are his choices?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    35. Re:So the hell what? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      It's important to ask, if the Verizon Order was in the rubber stamp pile -- what the hell was in those 11 that got rejected?

      Probably various attempts to wiretap the FISC judges themselves.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    36. Re:So the hell what? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

      Um, um, (looks around) Um, (loudly, speaking into the flower vase) YES. That Does Make Me Happy.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    37. Re:So the hell what? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000): .... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

      I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.

      The judges who preside over America's secret court

      In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."

      Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.

      "We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.

      NSA Data Mining Is Legal, Necessary, Sec. Chertoff Says

      FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process" .

      The judges who preside over America's secret court

      Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.

      From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.

      The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.

      The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376

      It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.

      Are you happier now?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    38. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      it sounds like he has skills perfectly suited to this war. what would he do if peace broke out? btdubs glad he's ok so far and hope he remains so.

    39. Re:So the hell what? by BobMcD · · Score: 2

      The key to democracy is that voting really does fix problems that most people actually care strongly about.

      Okay. Name one. Name one problem 'fixed' via democracy.

      Where I'm from, problems are 'fixed' by constant action, attention, and effort - not just by voting.

    40. Re:So the hell what? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Of course he is because that's what most people touch on a daily basis and its the thing people were concerned about. He says some words that appease the people makes some meaningless changes and everything stays the same.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    41. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blah blah bootlicking blah.

      Look at the Verizon order. The only calls it doesn't apply to are those that start and end in a foreign country. It is patently ludicrous to believe that there is probable cause to think that every call that starts, ends, or is wholly contained within the US borders, involves illegal behavior, nor is there any specificity about the evidence sought.

      Any court that would approve such an order in light of the 4th Amendment, is one made up of backbirths like yourself. That's really the heart of it, no matter how many voluminous pages of BS get generated.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    42. Re:So the hell what? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's exactly like a postcard! If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in listening and decryption equipment anyone can look at the message!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    43. Re:So the hell what? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I see you use the same dictionary as NSA and Ministry of Truth.

    44. Re:So the hell what? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Says the man with the tinfoil hat.

    45. Re:So the hell what? by atherophage · · Score: 1

      Just have NSA employees take furlough days. They work less = less data collected. Bonus spin points claiming it's saving the tax payers money/ Win win win.

    46. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I have an anonymous stalker and a cyberbully. at least log in to your account, and stop hiding behind AC!

    47. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. it's more like an email. a postcard you have no expectation of privacy. you can read it, your roommate can read it, the other guy's roommate can read it, etc. an email you can expect that nobody will read it except you, the recipient, and the ISPs who are carrying it. also like a phone call, now that you mention it.

      Also, metadata is used to route a message. you don't use the SMS content to route the message.

    48. Re:So the hell what? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The actual heart of the matter is that you and many other people think that by calling me or judges names you will change what is, what is constitutional, what is lawful. It won't happen. A president of the abolitionist party (the Republicans) named Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the Southern states by decree during the Civil War. It took a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in the United States legally.

      The next correct statement you make about the jurisprudence of the 4th Amendment may not be the first one, but it will be a refreshing change.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    49. Re:So the hell what? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Thank you! Well said.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    50. Re:So the hell what? by mars-nl · · Score: 1

      I always use GPG for my text messages, but I have to admit you run out of characters quick!

      -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
      Version: GnuPG
      jA0EAwMCHi4vgbczL9pgyRn1G5qRUfjPcL9a+DNn2ReEsGOD+f8EIMyth2os
      -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

    51. Re:So the hell what? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      One guy wrote all those Amendments.

      Black voting was mostly the result of a massive war - you may have heard of it.

      Women voting was years and years of hard work.

      The one spouting hyperbole is the voice that says 'all we need is votes'. That's a crock of shit.

    52. Re:So the hell what? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000)

      Those are probably where the guy doing the rubber stamping missed the paper due to air currents, the phone ringing or that hot redhead from HR walking past.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:So the hell what? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Best point about democracy ever. Thank you.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    54. Re:So the hell what? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):

      From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government, according to annual Justice Department reports to Congress.

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616

      You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

      Or the people asking for the warrants know exactly what a judge needs to hear in order to approve the warrant. Whether the warrant information is truthful or not is another matter, and it is doubtful that any judge, anywhere, is in a position to investigate the veracity of a warrant's claims.

      And that is the real problem: there is no way to prove that a CIA officer (or whoever is asking for the warrants) is telling the truth. And I can't think of a way that this can happen with transparency in the process, which is kinda counter to the idea of spying and secrecy. All the judges are doing is making sure that the right boxes are checked and filled out. Maybe members of congress (int. committee) could do a quarterly review of a sampling of warrants, like, actually investigate them, interview people, etc... I don't know.

  2. tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

    Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

    1. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by killhour · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty obvious what's going on. The administration knows it needs to do something to save face, and wants to do it on their own terms preemptively before they have to respond to proposals by people that AREN'T working for the NSA's best interests. If Obama cared, he would have done something about it BEFORE it was a PR nightmare.

    2. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      He cares all right... he want's MORE surveillance. He's proved it many times over.

      For what it's worth, I agree that Obama's proposal is nothing more than a whitewash. I'll support the other bills that come up in the House and Senate.

    3. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by khallow · · Score: 1

      Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum.

      The problem here is that unless resisted, power concentrates. There isn't a vacuum, but rather power being taken from other sources, namely, individuals, the states, and businesses.

    4. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Idou · · Score: 2

      tin_foil_hat_mod=1

      Maybe Obama does care, but cannot show it because the NSA would destroy his future by revealing some secret information they have found on him or his family. Accordingly, perhaps Snowden was actually a plant by some government official/agency outside of the NSA, trying to expose the monster the agency has become. However, until the NSA powers are reduced enough, everyone in the know also has to pretend Snowden is a fugitive.

      .... who wants to buy movie rights?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    5. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by JavaLord · · Score: 2

      And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

      Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

      Really, this is just strong government period. The government is telling corporations they must store data for surveillance purposes. This is a tax, as business must pay for the storage. Big business might not mind it that much, because it increases barriers to entry for small guys and creates and incentive for the government to keep them in business.

      I'd agree that totally removing a government creates a power vacuum. However, if Obama had made strict rules regarding a citizens privacy in regards to government and business that wouldn't create a power vacuum it would just mean the citizens are the empowered entity in the equation.

    6. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      It's pretty obvious what's going on. The administration knows it needs to do something to save face, and wants to do it on their own terms preemptively before they have to respond to proposals by people that AREN'T working for the NSA's best interests.

      I don't think it's about saving face... with us, anyway. It's pretty obvious the desires and opinions of Americans don't really matter to American politicos. But it IS becoming obvious that non-US companies are starting to choose non-US alternatives to Amazon, Google, and the like for their IT needs. Obama has probably figured out he may go down in history as the guy in charge when the fortunes of US tech companies started to crumble - and politicians DO care about corporate opinion.

      None of it matters, of course. Trust, once lost, can never be completely regained. This government (meaning the last 20 years or so, not just during Obama's watch) has done more to damage US interests and competitiveness than any terrorist group could have even dreamed about in their wildest hashish-induced hallucinations.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by anagama · · Score: 1

      The plan is to put TJ Max in charge of storing the data. Of course once they've been breached and the data is out in the wild, the Feds can do what they please with it.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Or as I like to say, cream isn't the only thing that rises to the top.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "there will always be strong government"

      I don't even disagree with you.
      But I'd argue that this doesn't mean we need to HELP give government more power - either to neo-con evangelists that want to force everyone into their fantasy-utopia of what the world should be, nor left-wing zealots that want to force everyone into their fantasy-utopia of what the world should be.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read the statement as "The current program will end, so we can institute an even more sweeping program that you plebes won't know about."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  3. I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...this sounds to me like rebranding.

    1. Re:I don't know... by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, we're still going to spy on your web history and every phone call, email, text, etc. that you send or receive. But this time WE PROMISE not to look at it! Satisfied, assholes?

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:I don't know... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I Am Satisfied. Totally. (ishestilllookingatme?)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  4. Money Talks by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words:
    1) A private enterprise will store secret data: What could possibly go wrong?
    2) More secret court oversight: as if the secret court that exists right now is not rubber-stamping everything the NSA passes its way.
    3) Companies will be able to talk about the secret court orders: Google and Facebook signed a big check for the future Obama Presidential Library?
    4) Rest assured this is a true reform! Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Money Talks by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      Never let a good (Snowden induced) crisis go to waste. In this case, they are taking the opportunity to privatize the spy apparatus further than ever before, and Obama has been told to sell it to the population at large as a good thing. Lucky they have all the mass media to help sell that line...

    2. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot the #5:

      5) A reasonable and smart Constitutional scholar and former professor is overseeing the process now.

      Obama isn't the retarded Bush that could barely read. Obama actually has an Ivy League degree. He didn't draft dodge like Bush. While he hasn't stopped the TSA, he hasn't increased their power like Bush would have done. We can trust him. That's what different this time around.

    3. Re:Money Talks by Garridan · · Score: 2

      This is already EXACTLY what happens. The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), for example, is a private company whose largest (though not sole, if you read between the lines... a comforting thought) client is the NSA. So basically, Obama's "reform" is "don't worry guys, we'll totally change everything: third parties will collect and analyze your information, the NSA will only purchase access to that information. Just like we're already doing." Sadly, this is "change I can believe in" 'cause it's the same bullshit I've come to expect from this twofaced asshole.

    4. Re:Money Talks by robinsonne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So people with Ivy League degrees never lie? He definitely tries more at being smooth-talking and glib but I trust him even less than Bush. Which is more dangerous, an incompetent crook that is blunt and makes mistakes or a competent one that doesn't?

    5. Re:Money Talks by Antipater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what scares me the most.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    6. Re: Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Examine Obama's actual work history. He was never a "law professsor, " and he never "taught Constitutional law." Nor did he ever edit a single law review article. A lifelong bloviator.

    7. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, and how did this get modded 'insightful'?

      You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

    8. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh. Bush graduated from Yale and got his MBA at Harvard. Spying programs expanded under Obama. You are delusional.

    9. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am sure he did not change his mind. Many people are just suckers and believe what political candidates say when running for office. He was a groomed candidate by a major political party. He was elected for two reasons, vitriolic hate for the opposing party and the color of his skin. The content of his character was not evaluated or scrutinized.

    10. Re:Money Talks by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      As he did on many issues... wars, economic policy, etc.

      But go back and listen to some of those campaign speeches sometime, though. You'll find a lot of "YES WE CAN" and a lot of "we can do better" and "this needs to be fixed," but a lot of vagueness about detailed policies. I still remember talking to fans after the election (and that's what many of them were: fans), and they thought ANYTHING was possible. I kept saying, "Well, I'll believe it when I see it... everything was kept so vague except for the cheerleading speeches," but I was told that I was just being cynical. And I should shut up because I was ruining the party-time atmosphere and celebration.

      There were already a lot of clues in the campaign that the actual content was TBD when it came to what Obama would do in office.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      Nah. There's no grand conspiracy. This happens with most politicians when they get elected. Obama was mostly a "blank slate" that just kept cheering "YES WE CAN," which allowed his fans to believe anything they wanted to believe about him. We heard a lot more about problems that needed to be solved than details about the solutions.

      And it turns out the details were pretty much similar to any other politicians from the two-party oligarchy.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years.

      I do not dispute that he's a very smart man. I've always found calling him a "scholar" to be stretching it a bit: yes, he was a lecturer who taught Constitutional law for a number of years, but he wasn't permanent faculty at a law school. He didn't spend his days writing scholarly articles for legal journals. He was -- first and foremost -- a politician... and still is.

      This is not at all to disparage his knowledge of the Constitution. I'm sure he can read it just as well as most of us can, and -- regardless of whether he's a Constitutional "scholar or not -- if he merely passed the bar, I would hope that he could understand the plain meaning of things like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

      But the Bush administration clearly didn't, and they had a lot of lawyers working for them too. So... why should it be different again?? If we just keep saying "YES WE CAN" enough times over and over, will things magically get better?

    11. Re:Money Talks by s.petry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wholly load of delusional bullshit Batman!

      Obama has a history of lying. It does not matter what a persons school was, or what race they are, or what religion they are. A proven liar is a liar. There are web sites that keep track of the major lies, and Obama in 4 years topped any previous president by at least double. We are not talking wishy-washy things like "close Gitmo" but big things like prosecuting bankers, ending wars, and repealing the Patriot act that he's lied about.

      As to him not expanding the TSA, this is another blatent lie. The TSA is now not just in airports, but bus and rail stations and sporting events. Fuck, even the Michigan State Fair has had a TSA presence for the last few years.

      To claim a Constitutional Scholor will review things is your third blatant fallacy. First it's a red herring, second nobody has determined who would be the watcher, and third relates directly to item 1. Obama claims to be an expert at Constitutional Law, and he is a liar. So no matter what the person studies or claims to be an expert in, you may end up with another liar sitting in an appointed office simply spreading more lies.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Money Talks by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      That's what scares me the most.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      He's a politician and 180 degree reversals are a standard ploy in that business. Why is everybody so surprised about that?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    13. Re:Money Talks by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, and how did this get modded 'insightful'?

      You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

      Then perhaps he continues to lie, to even himself, for an educator of Constitutional Law cannot possibly sit comfortably in his position and not feel like the Bill of Rights is completely null and void, degraded to that state by his own policy.

    14. Re:Money Talks by slinches · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make the mistake of assuming that because he studied the constitution that he admires or at least respects the values and motivations that it codifies. Wouldn't someone looking to find a way to bring it down do the same? Or he may have no direct interest at all and just thought it a good thing to have on the resume as an aspiring politician.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    15. Re:Money Talks by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      That's what scares me the most.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      That's called the "It's not fascism when WE do it!" effect.

    16. Re:Money Talks by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      I think what happened is at the end of his first security briefing, he realized that he was actually responsible for a lot of bad situations and had a new stark view of reality.

    17. Re:Money Talks by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      or was he just a pawn the entire time?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:Money Talks by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > 1) A private enterprise will store secret data: What could possibly go wrong?

      Um, offshore admin?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:Money Talks by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Woosh?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    20. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what scares me the most.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      Something happened to make him change his mind.

      Yes, something happened - he sat in that chair, and saw what information was available. On the one hand, how can we do this?

      On the other, how can we not?

      If he turned off that spigot, and then another 9/11 happened, he would always wonder if it could have been prevented.

      The problem is that all your successes are uncertain, but all your failures obvious. It's impossible to prove what you prevented or deterred, but all the failures are obvious.

      The lesser of two evils is still evil... and that's the curse of ruling

    21. Re:Money Talks by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      The only expert thing he knows about the Constitution is how to wipe his ass with it, because that's all he's done since obtaining his position. Perhaps he studied the Constitution for so long just for that reason, so he could better find ways to make it null and void. Anyone ever consider that?

    22. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it may be the case that he found out that there was a law that was passed, a Senate committee that oversaw it (legislative), there was an interpretation of it that was accepted by courts (judicial approval- that he did not know about before he was a president) and an executive branch agency that was already running it.
      When you see three branches of government agreeing to something and a society that does not know (and hence by definition does not care), maybe you start believing that you are doing the right things. Maybe it took Snowden to point out to Obama that he was wrong ?

    23. Re:Money Talks by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      We can trust him.

      Even if that were true, what happens come January 2017?

    24. Re:Money Talks by Geste · · Score: 1

      Obama isn't the retarded Bush that could barely read. Obama actually has an Ivy League degree.

      And Bobby Fischer was a really smart guy. What's your point?

      No, unlike in the Bush era, I don't cringe when I hear the President speak. I just get very depressed.

      Maybe not the worst President in this country's history, but certainly a leading contender for the most disappointing.

    25. Re:Money Talks by Geste · · Score: 1

      Woosh?

      Yeah, Whoosh me. Sigh.

    26. Re:Money Talks by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years?

      Yes. Look at the Snowden revelations, the NSA spy catalog, etc. Recall Dick Cheney's personality while in office. Ask yourself if you really believe that the monied interests are not powerful enough to, on a smaller number of cases basis perhaps, have access to that level of espionage technology and capability. Then ask yourself if that kind of a 'grand conspiracy' jives with Obama's verbal track record. It really isn't that complicated. It really does make sense. We need more Snowdens.

    27. Re:Money Talks by mars-nl · · Score: 1

      Obviously he's a secret agent for the Chinese to make sure the encryption doesn't get too good.

    28. Re:Money Talks by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years

      Yes.

  5. Great! by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

    YEAH I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT.

  6. Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you like your privacy, you can keep it, period."

    1. Re:Doubtful by asicsolutions · · Score: 1

      What I really said is "If you like your privacy you can keep it... Only if it hasn't been compromised already"

    2. Re:Doubtful by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I understood it differently:

      "If you like your privacy, you can eat me, period."

      The US is now the world's leading exporter of bullshit in the world, and we love to be number one!

      In the winter Olympics, we will definitely win the gold in the Downhill Giant Bullshit Slalom for men.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. The corporatism of America by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

    Another nice contract to somebody. No real change in the Status Quo.

    Gotta love that hope and change.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:The corporatism of America by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

      No, the biggest difference is that we're no longer going to spy on foreign leaders. Which is one of the few things the NSA was doing that was within their legal mandate (foreign signals intelligence is what they were created to do - domestic signals intelligence is something they were forbidden to do).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The corporatism of America by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't know. Look at the combination of elements here:
      1. 1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.
      2. 2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data. In contrast to today, where NSA has all the data at its fingertips and NSA employees make a hobby of poring through it for fun and profit.
      3. 3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it

      This is not everything I would hope for -- the secrecy of the FISA court remains a huge sticking point for me -- but I think these measures will improve things noticeably.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:The corporatism of America by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Like most things a politician or spook says... what is actually going to happen isn't clear.

      1) The NSA merely outsources the same thing it is doing now. That would be the worst of all scenarios. Where they set up a psuedo private entity to store all the business records that the NSA is forcing businesses to hand over without a constitutionally valid warrant. That option would merely continue today's unconstitutional practices and outsource the data storage provider. Literally just outsourcing the management of the building NSA built to some third party company. Complete BS and potentially even more dangerous to privacy.

      or

      2) The government passes a law specifying certain types of business records that must be kept on hand for a certain amount of time. For instance phone records need to be kept for 5 years, email logs or website logs need to be kept for 3 years and sms messages need to be kept for 1 year or something like that. However, exempt individuals from these data retention requirements because that could be abused to penalize people arbitrarily. And then work with the largest companies to standardize how the data needs to be transmitted in the case of a valid warrant (or I'll grant the need to just turn on the flow of real time data about everything to the NSA during briefly defined times of national emergency as ordered by the president and approved by congress, such as on the day of 9/11 when there were active attacks going on). In this scenario, data stays with the businesses that generated the records in the first place and goes no further without a constitutionally valid warrant or in times of imminent and great peril in which case privacy as a primary concern goes out the window, as it should when bombs are exploding and bullets flying.

      But this is the issue. Will the government and industry honestly approach the option of data retention in place or as the initial reactions suggest will the NSA merely fight like hell to keep their power to collect everything as they see fit while Industry fights to keep their cushy contracts which have resulted from providing this data.

    4. Re:The corporatism of America by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 2

      1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.

      The fact that anyone will store the data is in itself an egregious abuse of power. Don't collect it and don't store it.

      2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data.

      Which will be rubberstamped, as we've seen.

      3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it

      Something to give the appearance of doing something important.

      This is not everything I would hope for

      It shouldn't even be close.

    5. Re:The corporatism of America by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the wishful thinking that the NSA will somehow disappear that I consider foolish and childish.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    6. Re:The corporatism of America by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Number 1 isn't even clear yet... it is To Be Determined. One of the options being suggested is merely outsourcing the NSAs data warehouse to a third party company. Basically creating or designating a company to aggregate all this data. Think Google times Google times Google = Keeping all your eggs in one privatized NSA basket. That would be bad... very bad. But yes, it has also been suggested to let the data stay in place with the companies that are generating the records in the first place and merely introduce specific data retention requirements so the NSA and other government agencies can transfer specific targeted subsets of the data pertaining to a named individuals communications when they have a specific court order. That would be a very good thing and restore the rule of constitutional law. So we will see.

    7. Re:The corporatism of America by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.

      Yes, well, I'm very concerned about this. With the NSA cat and mouse game, at least there was a chance of the mouse winning. More importantly, the mouse could win without being sent to the chopping block, because the cat didn't want anyone to know it was even playing.

      Now what it sounds like to me is that we are going to publically require ISPs etc. to engage in long term storage of all of our activities so it can be accessed at request. I'm sure the logging requirements and the period the data is stored will only get longer with time. And agencies other than the NSA will want and receive access. And it will become illegal to do anything which bypasses this now-sanctioned spying.

      I prefer the secret quasi-legal spying where the NSA couldn't really use the data in most ordinary cases for fear of revealing what they were doing to making the spying an acceptable part of our government and culture.

  8. Unless laws change by Monoman · · Score: 2

    Unless laws change to explicitly ban behavior there is little to stop them from creating exceptions to their own policies and procedures.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Unless laws change by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      Laws don't need to change. Most of this is already unconstitutional. They've just been using their "State secrets" argument to keep it from getting to the supreme court to get ruled on.

    2. Re:Unless laws change by Monoman · · Score: 2

      Then explicitly outlaw that behavior because the existing law is not actually working.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    3. Re:Unless laws change by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. Let's pass a law that says it's illegal to disobey the law.

      The problem is that there are no penalties. The DOJ under Holder is not going to go after the NSA or any political entities that fall in line with the administration. Holder himself has been caught lying to congress, no penalties. If nothing can hold these people accountable, they're not going to change their ways. In theory, elections would serve this purpose, but the people running are all the same. It's not even like the people weren't paying attention. We had the TEA Parties, we had Occupy.. what changed?

      I really don't know where we go from here.

    4. Re:Unless laws change by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      They've just been using their "State secrets" argument to keep it from getting to the supreme court to get ruled on.

      That's pretty much the definition of an unconstitutional court: one that supersedes the SCOTUS.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Unless laws change by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It's not a law, it's a constitutional right. If they're willing to ignore the constitution, what makes you think they'll care about your new law?

  9. All about saving face. Didn't even address prism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I watched the whole thing. He chose to focus on phone meta data collection and not even address prism and the likes of the new utah data center. The speech and these new "reforms" are all about preserving the NSA ecosystem (read money) that spends billions of dollars of tax payer money on programs we don't want. For christs sake they are tapping domestic fiber lines and siphoning everything into storage (including phone calls) and the language in the law doesn't even consider it a search until the data (that they already stored) is queried. He won't address it because they already spend billions on it and he who upsets the flow of money in washington might as well tie their own noose. The dollar sign is the new swastika.

  10. Change You Can Hope For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So much change. Except, there is no change.

    I read the article and the Slashdot summary seems quite disconnected from the facts of the CNN report.

    'Let me be perfectly clear. We are making broad changes. But, data collection will continue. We might move the storage out of the NSA, or not. We won't listen in on Americans or our allies, unless we think we need to. We might add privacy advotaces to the FISA court, but we might not. So, you understand, this is change you can believe in.'

    1. Re:Change You Can Hope For by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      The change you voted for was edited after. But don't worry, things will change, just don't complain if it's for worse.

    2. Re:Change You Can Hope For by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You pretty much nailed it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:Change You Can Hope For by game+kid · · Score: 1

      "Let me be perfectly clear, as clear as the frosted glass of your light bulb."

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  11. welcome to nothing by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So it's a mix of bullshit and nothing. Fake oversight with "input" and everything stays the same.

  12. 3rd Party Storing of Information by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    Great, what possibly could go wrong there?

  13. Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard that Target put in a bid to securely host all of the secret data.

  14. Not only no ... by Chromium_One · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... but also go fuck yourself, Barry. Can't believe I voted for you. Ah well, let me look over the protest options next cycle.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    1. Re:Not only no ... by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Next time don't vote for a guy with no real trackrecord. For a politician, actions always speak louder than words.

    2. Re:Not only no ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Maybe you won't but you know what 95% of the people who want to protest against Obama will vote for, get ready for a third George Bush (if there's any left) in office. <sarcasm>I'm sure that'll sort everything out.</sarcasm> I'd quote the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, but reality has fiction beat. Enjoy your lizard.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Not only no ... by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's part of the problem when you feel you have to keep the lunatics out at all costs. Aside from the guarantee of more erosion on some social issues, I'm now having a hard time seeing how the opposition could have been worse. No, no, seriously, we really do need at least a viable third party.

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    4. Re:Not only no ... by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

      While the judges have weighed in on your effort at 3 of 10, I personally award you no points. May the FSM have mercy upon your soul. Ramen.

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    5. Re:Not only no ... by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which ruled out both McCain and Romney.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    6. Re:Not only no ... by Straif · · Score: 1

      Up until 1980 Barry was in fact a name he commonly went by. It was also a nickname his father adopted in 1959 when first coming to the US so calls of racism is hardly accurate. Just like it's not racist to refer to G.W.B. as Dubya. For good or bad it's merely a nickname.

      As for leadership, getting caught in the act and then taking half a year to react is hardly leadership, it's a PR response, nothing more.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    7. Re:Not only no ... by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      The NSA is no longer collecting this information. If you were rational, you would be praising him.

      This has *got* to be trolling. Would it actually be possible for anyone to believe this?

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    8. Re:Not only no ... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Both of them have track records, some good, some not so good, but they had a record. Obama had no record, he wa s ajr senator for a few years and he voted present more than he did yes or no. Anyone who had an IQ above a goldfish could see that obama was going to be a disaster. I can forgive people for being naive in 2008 but I cant forgive the idiots who voted for him again

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Not only no ... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      bu bu bu BUSH!!

      seriously, bush hasnt been president for over 5 years now, come up with some new material

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Not only no ... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      He had a track record. In 2008 Senator Obama voted to grant phone companies retroactive immunity for participating in Bush's spying.

    11. Re:Not only no ... by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      disaster? Because McCain starting a war with Iran with one hand and letting the country slide into another great depression with the other would have been sooo much better. Amazing how fast people forget reality.

    12. Re:Not only no ... by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like he said "If you like your doctor (healthcare) you can keep your doctor. (period)", until that turned out to be a lie for millions and millions of people around the country that got cancellation letters. How anyone can believe anything that comes out of his mouth at this point is beyond me. If you think that is the "End of Story" I have a bridge to sell you...

    13. Re:Not only no ... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the reality is we dont know what would have happened because it didnt happen. Sure we can speculate, Im sure mccain was going to change the flag to the swastica with a sickle on it, thank GOD for obama otherwise we would all be nazi communists!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  15. Re:What a joke by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

    Lots will change. For one, instead of a government entity tasked with keeping and tracking secrets, the tax payer will get bilked by the same telcos already screwing us over who don't think the internet should fall under common carrier laws. Now we get to dump piles of cash at the same piece of crap to store data instead of a government organization who actually understands big data.

  16. Trust us, we're, like, TOTALLY actually doing this by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about oversight? They say they're going to stop doing this and that, but how will we ever know whether they're being honest about it? How will we know whether the next president decides to turn the bus back around? Congressional oversight is a joke, as members of Congress (e.g,, Feinstein) are as much in favor of running roughshod over citizens' rights and allies' respect as Gen. Alexander is. FISC oversight is likewise pointless, and several of those judges have argued against even having an opposing side arguing for the privacy protections of the people. Short of another Snowden, there's no way to know.

  17. Someone please break into his house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and take his peace prize away

  18. Obama as the official 'transparency president'... by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... recognized that his administration has slipped up in allowing the NSA to have 100% free feign with civilian surveillance. Our bad.

    To reward the citizens continued support of out cause we will be increasing the official ObamaChocolate programs weekly individual chocolate allowance from 30 grams to 25 grams.

  19. Third parties, huh? by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the NSA will have about as much trouble getting to that as they did getting into other companies' data centers.

  20. The mention of Snowden's name by mws1066 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When Obama mentioned Snowden's name, you could see a bit of disgust and a sneer streak across his face for a brief moment. He then felt the need to point out that he was ahead of Snowden, planning to confront the system anyway.

    --
    Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
  21. The transparency president by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about U.S. citizens can query the database and receive a report on what data the NSA has collected?

    1. Re:The transparency president by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  22. Is it for real? by hduff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read "Enemies: A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner and you'll see that we have been through this BS before. Nothing changes.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  23. Didn't even read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is Gitmo still open? Are the lights still on at the NSA? I trust you not.

  24. Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Regardless of one's feelings about Snowden, I think it's pretty clear these changes (IF actually implemented) are a result of him opening peoples' eyes to the extent of the surveillance and spying on the American people. We seriously owe him, big time imo.

    As an left-leaning independent, I was generally optimistic about Obama entering office, sadly, not so much any more --- NOT that I think things would be better under Republicans mind you, who seem to say 'less government' only in regards to their corporate overlords, but are heavy handed in wanting to legislate their personal morality (gay marriage/rights, religion, women's issues, etc)

    Many days I wish the US had a parliamentary system such as England or Canada, this two party sh*t if for the birds. At least in those countries, minority parties can actually gets seats and have some representation -- here, we are stuck with two lame ass parties.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    1. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by bigpat · · Score: 1

      How about no parties? At least not as they exist now as legally ingrained parts of the electoral process. As factions the two parties have been more concerned with control of turf and spending to perpetuate the interests of their whatever constituencies keep them in power.

    2. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      How about no parties? At least not as they exist now as legally ingrained parts of the electoral process. As factions the two parties have been more concerned with control of turf and spending to perpetuate the interests of their whatever constituencies keep them in power.

      I think that there should still be parties, because a group of people should be able to find common ground and agree on things. The issue is that we vote for the representatives of a party. If instead a subset of issues was chosen to reflect important issues of the day, and the parties had to pick how they felt about each, and then we voted on how we felt about the issues, and the winner was the party with the closest approximation of the peoples desires; it would create incentives for there to be lots of parties.

    3. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many days I wish the US had a parliamentary system such as England or Canada, this two party sh*t if for the birds. At least in those countries, minority parties can actually gets seats and have some representation -- here, we are stuck with two lame ass parties.

      "Parliamentary" has nothing to do with that. It's the voting system that matters.

      America uses "Winner takes all" aka "First past the post". That system is bullshit, it is mathematically provable that it inevitably leads to 2 parties only. England also uses FPTP which is why there are Labour and Tories are almost always dominant, and the minority parties typically only get a couple of seats (NOTE: The US House of Reps does have a few independents in it as well, whoopie, changes nothing).

      You want to fix that, you need to change the voting system to be Proportional, or, at the very least, Run-off. Ultimately, every political problem can be traced back to the system used to choose politicians, the system itself is a failure that only offers a least-bad of the terrible choices; it is rather obvious how the cumulative bullshitting of a long line of "least bad" politicians gradually accumulates into a disaster.

    4. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      or Snowden-Obama: 1 Military-industrial Complex: 0.9. Unlike some other posters you do appear to have some inkling that democrats, including Obama, can't just do anything they please and still get elected. A lot of the things left-leaning independents would like them to do don't get done simply because distortions of those actions could be easily used to whip the ignorant masses into foaming fury with a few deceptive commercials. It turns out keeping power away from the dishonest madmen is pretty tricky with an ignorant electorate. And I totally agree voting reforms would help, but until then...

    5. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by melchoir55 · · Score: 2

      The United States doesn't have a two party system. I believe a voter can write whoever they like in to the ballot. US citizens have convinced themselves they need to be on a winning "side" in an election. So, rather than vote for the person they think would best serve the office, they vote for the "side" they would prefer to win. US citizens have basically been rolled by game theory. That is, they all think they are all accomplished game theorists but are in fact *terrible* at it. They hate their leaders, they have the power to change it without violence, and they refuse to vote for anyone else. This isn't new. It has been this way so long that current young adults have never experienced a sane voting environment.

      It's actually kind of funny. Like a sad clown.

  25. "No evidence of abuse has been found" by Error27 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obviously LOVEINT is one example. But more details are coming out about how David Patraues was caught having an affair because of "metadata" collected by the NSA.
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/17/4111871/metadata-helped-reveal-gen-petraeus.html#.Utlud2nfqCg

    When Jill Kelley first reported getting threatening emails about Patraues, the FBI read all her emails as part of "a routine step".
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/us/from-petraeus-scandal-an-apostle-for-privacy.html

    They didn't have a warrant to read her email, they just hacked into google and made a copy of everyone's email. If you report a crime to the FBI they read your email. Simple as that.

    1. Re:"No evidence of abuse has been found" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or this one, spying on girlfriend's, ex's, etc http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html

  26. BETTER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There! I feel the hot breath of reform already. Big brother is a subcontract.

    Now the secret courts will have to examine secret accusations with extra secrecy. The NSA building data centers will be reversed, so that the commercial sector can occupy this function. And send the bill for "services".

     

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:BETTER! by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Or a crafty bastard that knows his constituency will fall for the "I didn't know they were doing this" act, again.

    2. Re:BETTER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Or a crafty bastard that knows his constituency will fall for the "I didn't know they were doing this" act, again.

      When you sign the bills to grease pigs, you ought to figure they can slip the pen.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:BETTER! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      âoeaides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, just how far the surveillance had gone.â David Plouffe, Obamaâ(TM)s advisor, said, âoeThings seem to have grown at the NSA. I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.â

      As if anyone believe in the fairy tales the Obama administration tries so hard to tell the world.

      No matter how Obama tries, he just can't shirk his own responsibility as the POTUS. If he doesn't want to be responsible for anything that NSA has done during his time as the POTUS then I humbly suggest that Obama should abdicate his position as the POTUS.

      But would Obama do so ?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    4. Re:BETTER! by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      There! I feel the hot breath of reform already. Big brother is a subcontract.

      Now the secret courts will have to examine secret accusations with extra secrecy. The NSA building data centers will be reversed, so that the commercial sector can occupy this function. And send the bill for "services".

      Yes, and this morning I saw a beautiful flock of pigs flying in a vee formation. It was breath taking. You can always tell when a politician is lying... his lips are moving. Double down, change the subject, find another crisis and the press will cover our butts.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
  27. A curb on *use* (not on *collection*) by hazeii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.

    In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.

    So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  28. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    He won't address it because they already spend billions on it and he who upsets the flow of money in washington might as well tie their own noose.

    Or maybe he actually believes the surveillance is a good thing. Given his voting record, that seems likely. Obama has faults, but being a slave to money doesn't seem to be one of them.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  29. Two steps away from a terrorist by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Kevin Bacon is breathing a lot easier now!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  30. only one problem.. by strstr · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real surveillance and intelligence community crimes and abuses were not addressed.

    They did nothing about the remote sensing and energy weapons abuses. Because they'd surely have to convict the President and others of crimes.

    Dr. Robert Duncan of the CIA says that radar systems were retro fitted with mind reading and mind altering technology in the 1970s and 1980s. Which they are using to remotely decode peoples thoughts, emotions, memories, and also to remotely control and commit secret assassinations and experimentation right here domestically for the last 35 years.

    These black operations can also be confirmed by NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who said they target Americans with space capability during their black operations. That includes illegal surveillance called Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, based on the same technologies Duncan disclosed.

    A US Investigative Services (defense contractor) employee also came forward to say that these weapons are real and being used to target people to me in private. In fact, she presumes, that I was targeted during highly illegal psych / weapons experimentation.

    This technology is the ultimate surveillance gear, and our fuck tard police, FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD and Homeland Security agents are running around using this in secret on us. Spying on our thoughts, memories, what we see, hear, think, and feel. Agents link up and covertly communicate and spy on citizens, and they attack and brutalize people, set them up to look mentally ill.

    Read USIS employee transcripts here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/USIS.html

    Read Remote Neural Monitoring article and 4+ patents covering these weapons, watch the 23+ videos including ones with Russell Tice and Dr. Robert Duncan admitting it here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

    Finally, see my homepage with more information including Dr. Robert Duncan's book about these abuses here : http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    My full story is on the site including names of people involved in targeting me with these weapons. It all started during the big US Department of Justice investigation of the mental health system going on here in Oregon, which has been going on since 2006.

    The thing is, Obama knows this is going on. And so do these intelligence analysts who created the recommendations for Obama. They did not even come close to addressing these issues, and covered it all up. Tice is also claiming the program PRISM that was the target of the recommendations, is the low tech side of the surveillance issue, while the space capabilities are the high tech side which were not mentioned or addressed once. The media has been retardly covering only the low tech side, censoring revelations from Russell Tice and others. Like Tice said in July 2013, Snowden's allegations were only scratching the surface. They are never going to stop illegally watching us, .. they got 30+ electron imaging Electronic Intelligence satellites watching us now, globally, and in America.

    1. Re:only one problem.. by strstr · · Score: 1

      Dr. Robert Duncan, went on Conspiracy Theory with Governor Jesse Ventura in the Brain Invaders episode. Duncan says he is afraid for his life, because two of his comrads were killed, and he's one of the last ones who developed this to know. He thinks they abused his work and research, using it for evil purposes, to hurt and sabotage people. The technology is all based on Malech's patent from 1974, which uses radio signals to read and alter brain waves using conventional radar systems. US Patent # 3,951,134, Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves (this is on my site, previously linked).

      The videos of Robert Duncan saying that are on my website. And here specifically:

      Video which includes the clips of Robert Duncan's confessions (starts at 41 minutes in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqxN5DHFvU#t=2460
      Brain Invaders episode of Conspiracy Theory: http://youtu.be/18PtOXrzDVE

  31. Treadstone ends, Blackbriar begins... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2

    Likely the 'new' program is already up and running, this just provides a distraction for the masses.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  32. It's not just the president, but gov. corruption. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, the President is not allowed to know everything about what the secret agencies do. There have been many examples of that.

    The U.S. government has engaged in violence each year for more than 100 years, to make a profit for a few. Anyone desiring more information about that can, for example, read these highly rated books:

    Overthrow: America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer

    The brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and their secret world war by Stephen Kinzer

  33. This will help build PRISM v2.0 by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So since the commercial entities will now be responsible for storing all of this data, care to guess as to how much the big carriers are going to charge us, the customer, for this now-mandatory requirement?

    One can only imagine the cost of storing the NSAs requirements for oversight. All I do know is the costs sure as hell won't come out of the executive bonus fund. The customer will foot that bill. I promise you.

    And forget deleting the data. Any of it. Ever. That's not an option.

    Then the US government, for the sake of "redundancy", will still contract with some other 3rd party to store all of the same data over again, so they can create a new "Federal Communications Security Act" tax or some other horseshit to bilk the American people out of even more money, and fund PRISM v2.0

    Oh...I'm sorry, did you actually believe they wouldn't do this again? Please. Besides, PRISM v2.0 has an app store, and the drone app I hear is killer.

  34. I guess I don't understand the public uproar by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I'll be modded down for this, but whatever.

    I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on. I guess that now the data is structured and easily searchable rather than having to stitch together random analog phone conversations. But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something. The Internet is a collection of semi-public networks, always has been. And spying has always existed; that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

    Everyone loves to bash the president, but I'll bet it's not an easy job. Imagine what it was like for Cold War presidents...when the Soviet Union was actively planning our destruction and we were planning theirs. Coming back from the inauguration party, you meet with your top generals and are told of every threat that hasn't been made public. On top of that, you're ultimately responsible for nuclear weapons AND you somehow have to make everyone like you. I imagine something like this happened with Obama...once he got the job he was briefed on what's actually happening outside of the public eye, and chose to continue the spying programs. Post 9/11, there were many people who didn't want to see that relatively minor event repeated at any cost, which is why these programs were put in place to begin with. An entity that was determined enough and had enough resources would be able to cause way worse devastation if they wanted to.

    So call me an ignorant sheep or whatever -- I just don't see why so many people are up in arms. I'd expect the rabid anti-government crowd to be shouting their protests from within their mountaintop compounds, but not the average citizen.

    1. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

      I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on.

      I thought the same about it if it was for the common good, until I saw it wasn't for the common good. Got to thinking if you take a little pinch of total surveillance in a police state, remove basic rights of the people and add a little touch of corruption and bingo! You have a corporate espionage cash cow the people have not right do anything about.

    2. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Things that have been illegal (or at least, could get you into legal trouble) in the past:

      Marrying outside your race.
      Protesting an ongoing war.
      Homosexuality, anal sex in particular.
      Being a member of the communist party.

      I'm sure there are more, that's just off the top of my head.

    3. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know I'll be modded down for this, but whatever.

      I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on. I guess that now the data is structured and easily searchable rather than having to stitch together random analog phone conversations. But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something. The Internet is a collection of semi-public networks, always has been. And spying has always existed; that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

      Everyone loves to bash the president, but I'll bet it's not an easy job. Imagine what it was like for Cold War presidents...when the Soviet Union was actively planning our destruction and we were planning theirs. Coming back from the inauguration party, you meet with your top generals and are told of every threat that hasn't been made public. On top of that, you're ultimately responsible for nuclear weapons AND you somehow have to make everyone like you. I imagine something like this happened with Obama...once he got the job he was briefed on what's actually happening outside of the public eye, and chose to continue the spying programs. Post 9/11, there were many people who didn't want to see that relatively minor event repeated at any cost, which is why these programs were put in place to begin with. An entity that was determined enough and had enough resources would be able to cause way worse devastation if they wanted to.

      So call me an ignorant sheep or whatever -- I just don't see why so many people are up in arms. I'd expect the rabid anti-government crowd to be shouting their protests from within their mountaintop compounds, but not the average citizen.

      Many people are up in arms because they want the "freedom" to call anyone they want without the fear of being implicated in a terrorist plot of some sort. There is no trust in the government they voted for (for or against)...

    4. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even go so far as "calling anyone they want" Under the 3 steps rule all of your crap could be scrutinized with an eye towards charging you with something if you went to grade school with a guy who had a college course with someone that was a grade school classmate of a person of interest in a terrorism related case. And now according to the president they are going to cut that back to only two jumps instead of three, how come I don't really feel any relief in that.

      One of the things that has really amazed me over the last decade is how often abuse of the patriot act shows up in regular network TV shows. And not as in they bust someone abusing the law but where the main characters deliberately misuse the law in order to further their investigation. But somehow it always ends up being justified because because they always get the real badguy. What a crock.

    5. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by naasking · · Score: 1

      I guess that now the data is structured and easily searchable rather than having to stitch together random analog phone conversations. But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something.

      You're wrong. Scandals about the misuse of this power have already broken out. Where have you been? Didn't you hear about the NSA employees abusing these surveillance powers to spy on potential love interests?

      That's just the beginning. Once you normalize that behaviour, you can expect political and other oppressive abuses to soon follow.

    6. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something.

      Or if your ex has a friend at the NSA and wants to get back at you. Or if you decide you want to run for office (or otherwise get "uppity") and you annoy the wrong well-connected politician. Or some NSA programmer messes up an algorithm and you get flagged by mistake. Or the government decides to go full-on totalitarian and start persecuting people for thought crime. Etc.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Many people are up in arms because they want the "freedom" to call anyone they want without the fear of being implicated in a terrorist plot of some sort. There is no trust in the government they voted for (for or against)...

      I was just thinking about this the other day - when you respond to a post on Slashdot (or any other online forum), you likely do not have any idea of that persons' real identity. If that person just happened to be a bad guy, there would now be an electronic record of you communicating with him.

      Another example - do you know everyone who sends you email? Have you ever received unsolicited email? What if the person sending it to you is on a watch list? Are you now a person of interest?

      Perhaps these ideas seem far-fetched, but one has only to look at the lead up to the Iraq war to see that intelligence analysts see what the want to see. They're human. They make mistakes. This is why we, the people, need the protections enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than ever before.

    8. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You might be less of a sheep if you knew your gods damned history.

  35. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...all about preserving the NSA ecosystem (read money) that spends billions of dollars of tax payer money on programs we don't want.

    I think Obama's actions in office are disgusting, but remember that it is a bi-partisan (in this regard) Congress that continually votes more and more billions for black-budget agencies that have no congressional oversight.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  36. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Obama has faults, but being a slave to money doesn't seem to be one of them.

    You're joking, right? I mean, I know we're 6 years in and it doesn't come up anymore, what with the idiocy that is ObomneyCare (a giftwrapped blowjob to the InsCos) and doing his damndest to keep us moving down that path to "1984 Meets Shadowrun," but it was less than a month before he threw himself right into the same pit as all of his predecessors, in the face of his own "promise" to "stop the revolving door."

    He's as much of a whore as any of them.

  37. So we are still being monitored on the internet? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    So everything on the internet is still being monitored heavily? Makers sense,.... gotta fill up that new data center in Utah.

  38. If the FISA court has oversight ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    ... then why not have them be the keepers of the data?

    Then they'd be able to accurately monitor how it's actually being used.

    Having some third party manage it just seems like one of those 'well, technically we're not supposed to, so we found a loophole' ... like how they're not allowed to operate spy satellites over the US, so they have to instead buy imagery from commercial businesses to get those images.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  39. Problem solved by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Geeks: "The public does a bunch of very insecure things. Someone could abuse all the myriad mistakes, where we don't even vaguely try to adopt best practices, and they do something bad."

    News: "These people have started exploiting everyone's known bad practices. So have these people. And these people. And them. And them."

    Geeks: "Also, theoretically, these people and these people and these other people, could started exploiting our bad practices too."

    Public: "Yeah, but that's hypothetical."

    Snowden: "The government has decided to exploit everyone's bad practices."

    Public: "HEY!!!!"

    President: "Oh. Ok, we'll stop exploiting it quite so much."

    Problem solved.

    Geeks: "No, act--"

    I SAID, PROBLEM SOLVED.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  40. B.S. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Everything Obama SAYS today can be reversed with a secret executive order tomorrow.

    I'm HOPING for some CHANGE, Obama!

    1. Re:B.S. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You don't get much change for only putting your two cents in...

  41. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps he was studying it to learn best how to kill it. Know your enemy.

  42. Voting System by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

    Good luck on that constitutional convention getting called.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
  43. Amnesty for Snowden by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    I am shocked that he did not include amnesty for Snowden. I think it is a distinct possibility for his last day in office. For Obama to have to rewrite public policy because of Snowden's action - and essentially admit the government was wrong (by virtue of the fact that he is correcting actions) - Snowden should be given Amnesty and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He risked a LOT more than Oprah did - and did a LOT more to assure the freedom of all Americans.

  44. Unintended consequences by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    Apparently Obama's handlers discovered that the world doesn't appreciate being spied on, and the world has started to decrease the amount of business they do with American companies. This hits the real power people in the wallet, and we can't have that! Quick, have Obama issue a statement. Yep, that ought to fool the 99% for another couple of years.

  45. Semantics by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    By "new oversight" he actually means drones... :)

  46. Nice try by garyoa1 · · Score: 2

    Nice try barry but... no cigar. The only people who care about spying on foreign countries (friend OR foe) are the foreign countries. Who likely all do it themselves anyway. Spying on your own people reeks of Stalin and Hitler. (the list goes on)

    Using a court order? No problem since you'd have to introduce reason. Just for the hell of it? Might as well just burn the constitution.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  47. Re:It's not just the president, but gov. corruptio by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Sometimes its just plausible deniability. In those cases, the president is not supposed to know, but he damned well knows and nobody can prove he did. Dont be naive.

    --
    NO SIG
  48. Re:I gotta love it! by alexborges · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is true but Obama did support Bush on all patriot act stuff... he has always supported this kind of stuff... hell, if you can say one thing about the guy is that he doesnt flipflop around this particular issue.

    --
    NO SIG
  49. Sigh.... by ApplePy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" is the only phrase that comes to mind.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  50. Seriously? by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Obama used the word change? Without irony?

  51. From NPR: no word on encryption subversion by twocows · · Score: 1

    About the only thing glaringly missing from the President's statement was that apparently he didn't mention a single thing about encryption. I can only assume this means that they're going to continue subverting encryption standards and such.

  52. Chinese sporting wood by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    I'm sure everyone in PLA unit 61398 is hard over the prospect of mining all the intelligence data that we're going to conveniently outsource for them.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  53. Well, it's a step at least by Millennium · · Score: 1

    This is not where we need to be, nor anywhere near it. But it is a step in the right direction, and should be both encouraged and taken.

    This does not mean we should let up in even the slightest degree. Far from it: we will need to intensify the message after this, to counteract the inevitable complacency that comes with having done a tiny amount. But this is how battles like these are won: take what is offered, then demand the rest, and repeat until you've got it.

  54. What to do with the data by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "While the bulk telephone data remains with the NSA for now, Obama wants those records moved out of government hands, though it is uncertain where, a senior administration official said in briefing reporters on condition of not being identified."

    I'm thinking, some analyst's laptop. Stored in the back of his car while he stuffs a few bills at the kitty kat lounge.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  55. Chicago politician - you were warned. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

    Dead on.

    Obama learned politics in Chicago - the current record holder for corrupt big-city political machines. He is a classic example of a corrupt machine politician.

    The Clintons are also masters of the (less intense) state-level version of the form, having risen to the top in Arkansas, which has been run by a corrupt machine since a Mafia family from New York took it over when the big city got too hot for them. Obama beat them for the Democratic nomination. He has now remade the Federal government on the model of Chigago.

    This was predicted and announced by quite a large number of people well before the election. Nevertheless, he won. So how did this come about?

    There are a number of factors. But IMHO this is the most decisive: The Republican Party's organization, for well over a decade, has been solidly controlled by the Neocon faction (one of the four major and several minor factions of the party). In the last two presidential nomination battles, the Liberty wing (another of the big four), under the inspiration of Ron Paul and drawing members mainly from the young and/or Internet connected, made substantial inroads.

    Their successes in the 2008 nomination process threatened to eventually displace the Neocons' control of the party machinery, as the Neocons had displaced their predecessors (mainly the Christian Right) previously. So in the 2012 nomination the Neocons fought an extremely dirty battle, with large amounts of cheating, rule-breaking, and even incidents of violence (including broken bones). This so alienated the Liberty wing (and some members of other factions) that they refused to support the Neocon's nominee in the general election. Romney lost five states by margins substantially less than the number of people who voted for Ron Paul in those states' primaries, and those states' electoral votes would have swung the general election. It's a good bet that virtually none of the Ron Paul supporters voted for Romney, and even those would have been more that balanced by Republican voters for other candidates who were also appalled at the machine's treatment of their opposition.

    One circulating meme was: "If this is how they behave in the nomination process, how can we allow them to control of the machinery of the Federal Government?" Even KNOWING that Obama would run the Fed like a Chicago-style machine and use it to stomp on the people, letting the Neocon's machine continue to consolidate their control of the major opposition party and drive the big-government non-choice-election system into the foreseeable future could still look like a worse choice.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. Re:It's not just the president, but gov. corruptio by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > Also, the President is not allowed to know everything about what the secret agencies do.

    Anyone old enough to remember "plausible deniability"?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  57. If you like your privacy by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    You can keep it.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  58. You couldn't make it up .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    'Obama also announced "new oversight" to spying on foreign leaders, and an end to spying on leaders of friendly and allied countries`

    Reminds me of a quote from V for vendetta ..

    Prothero: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

    Dascombe: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people --

  59. Communications Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suspect that being president, he gets to hear mostly from security people, from the armed forces and the like - he has a daily security briefing at least (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Brief). Is the material in this scrutinized by anyone outside the mainstream security establishment? Does he have a daily economics briefing (if he does, I can only imagine what it consists of). Does he have a daily "we heard from the people" briefing? Or even a weekly ACLU briefing?

    No? Then don't be surprised when he tends to give the security folks what they want. They have the high bandwidth conduit to him.

  60. Pragmatism by MacAndrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think what's missed is that "no drama" Obama is a pragmatist first. I think he feels genuine empathy and believes (for obvious reasons) in civil rights, but in office has been willing to sacrifice little in the name of idealism. Guantanamo, for example; I think he would have liked to close it but found out how political impossible it was unless the detainees disappeared somehow. In fairness, in the wake of 9/11 and a ridiculously reactionary right it's been pretty hard to do much for civil liberties without an avalanche of criticism for beign soft and withering blame for any terrorist acts (Benghazi). But at bottom I think pragmatism, political and leadership, explains most of his choices. I wish he'd tried to be more inspirational and led in a direction that might last for generations, but I settle for (partially corrupt but historically huge) health-care reform.

    I can imagine better alternatives, but I worked for Obama because I saw considerably worse. You don't have to pick sinners and saints in these things, sometimes both sides are deficient. Just try for what's best for the time being. If I tried to confront the true enormity of what we're doing out there rather then try for incremental change, i think I'd implode. I don't think much of the "idealists" attacking Obama on morally correct grounds but without a realistic path to improvement. That's just ego.

    Obama won't make any grand stands on privacy or civil rights generally (gay marriage is an exception, but I think the financial incentive there was pretty big). It's a rare politican who would, unfortunately. I hope the people will.

  61. Or a third party by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I read through the whole transcript. There's a lot of fluff in there and lip-service about reform and oversight. Which, hey, is better than coming out swinging claiming that the NSA can do no wrong, which is kinda what we got at the start. The good news is that he understands that we do need people investigating terrorism and that there is a valid reason to keep a leash on those spooks.

    Of the ACTUAL changes he's proposing:
    -National security letters should not be indefinite ("unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy"). Despite the major cop-out, this is a good thing.
    -Asking congress to make an oversight panel in FISC. Which, you know, is asking someone else to watch over your department.
    -Treat foreigners like real people. Hey, that's nice.
    -Outsourcing the master database to a third party.

    Wait, what was that last one?

    I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.

    Well that's a gooooowwwaaaitaminute... That just means someone other than the government is holding EVERYONE'S DATA...

    replaced by one in which the providers, or a third party, retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed.

    HOLY FLIPPING BALLS! What the fuck are you thinking!? You're outsourcing the fucking keys the freaking kingdom to a "third party"!?!?!? Hey, I hear India will do it on the cheap. Maybe China will undercut them.

    On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what's essentially a government function, but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

    No fucking shit sherlock. So then why are you doing that?

  62. "Reforms" by Loopy · · Score: 1

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  63. Re:Fun Facts by strstr · · Score: 2

    Not true. They actually use radiation on my genitals to fucking rape me, simulate massage, and other abusive things (nerve compression/virtual sex). But this is what others report is happening to them, too.

    Also I was falsely arrested because the police have this technology locally in the area, and they've been using it to hurt me, and I get targeted with them for abuses, false arrests, etc. Yep, so false arrest, inducement of situations, and other abuses. This is what they're doing to people. Just like Dr. Robert Duncan said.

    I am currently going to court and expect a big defense all related to this technologies misuse in the area, with experts.

    My twitter feed is really clean and I have over 1300 followers. Including big names like NBC, some human rights lawyers from Fox News, quite a few media outlets like Der Speigel, CNN, ACLU, etc. I am not saying they all support me, in fact.. I think the ACLU fucking sucks. And most of these places could have blown the door off this with a story, but so far haven't done shit.
    http://twitter.com/toddgiffen

  64. 1) Plausible deniability. 2) Arranged ignorance. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "Dont be naive."

    You missed something. There is "plausible deniability". Then there are numerous issues that the president is never told.

    The US Has 761 Military Bases throughout the world.

    The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

  65. Re:Fun Facts by strstr · · Score: 1

    You are actually suffering from delusions. Google's own definition is:

    an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

    Dr. Robert Duncan and all the evidence clearly contradict you. You are mentally ill, troll shit. Stop fighting reality, noob.

  66. Re:1) Plausible deniability. 2) Arranged ignorance by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    there are numerous issues that the president is never told

    How would you know that?

  67. History books by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Because of books written by historians, and book written by former presidents.

  68. More lies from king b. o.!! by JohnnyConservative · · Score: 1

    More lies from king b. o.!!