Slashdot Mirror
Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?
An anonymous reader links to this editorial at Ars Technica which argues that "As chief executive, Obama has the power to reform the NSA on his own with the stroke of a pen. By not putting this initiative into an executive order, he punted to Congress on an issue that affects the civil liberties of most anybody who picks up a phone. Every day Congress waits on the issue is another day Americans' calling records are being collected by the government without suspicion that any crime was committed. 'He does not need congressional approval for this,' said Mark Jaycoxx, an Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney."
Or they can manufacture it and have demonstrated it to him.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.
Because he fully supports it. Duh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs
He's still got Obama's election slogans ringing in his ears "Yes we can!" and "Change!!" lol. Obama is a political animal, just like all the others in DC. Do not expect anything different from him. As another commenter pointed out, he is part of the system that created and supports the military surveillance complex.
If all Obama does is sign an executive order, the fire under Congress to control this activity is gone, and the next president can easily undo it. How about keeping the heat on Congress to pass legislation?
There is serious political downside to doing this.
Consider for example what would have happened had he walked back all these subversions to our liberties 6 months before the Boston Bombing and then what would have happened in the political sphere thereafter. In the end Obama is not a courageous leader who does what is right because its right - he's a very cautious politician and makes decisions that seem to reflect just that. His administration has made "cover all the bases" types of political decisions from the beginning...unfortunately right after what happened to our civil liberties after the previous administration that is not what we, as a country, probably needed (and he campaigned as if he was something else). Is it possible they have dirt on him, possibly, but I think the political danger angle is the more likely and is also why this will have to be forced on by congress (and Republicans in particular as they would be the one's to pounce him were anything to happen after a rollback). This is also why its going to be very hard for these things to be rolled back.
As I seen Obama's use of executive orders, he generally only uses them when there is a law that needs counter-acting. If there were a law requiring the collection of data, Obama could make an executive order to stop the collection of data, or at least delaying the collection of data. But without any such law his hands may be tied.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
...and now everyone knows that it's being done, so why stop? Besides, ever try to put a cat back into a bag? I can't imagine trying to take this "toy" away from the NSA (or other agencies) would be any easier.
Once again, this isn't it.
He's had several opportunities to do something about this. He keeps making weaselly attempts to talk about it like he's doing something without actually making any changes. It seems obvious to me that he wants this to continue, much like his equally weasel-ish approach to medical cannabis. And this way, he can blame it on a do-nothing Congress, thus giving his potential successor a talking point.
...was every bit against domestic spying as he was against gay marriage.
Maybe he should have said "If you like your civil liberties, you can keep your civil liberties."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Not going to happen. He'll blame the inaction on Republicans.
Perhaps it's simply lip service? He's talked about putting limits on data collection, but to me it sounds more like "Ok, I poured a little water on the fire but you guys have one more chance to not let the cat out of the bag."
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
"With a stroke of a pen..."
a Republican president, like say George W. Bush, could put the NSA plan right back into effect
with ***Congress*** passing a law it makes that avenue alot more difficult
there is...ahem...alot of support for NSA reform...
the question should be, why **wont** Republicans in Congress sign off on reform???
i know this explanation has a few levels of complexity so its easier to troll, but i'm right...this is what's happening....Obama does not support a policy of warrantless wiretaps
Thank you Dave Raggett
it's because an executive order can be undone just as easily by the next President
if Congress passes a law it will have alot more standing than an exc. order
if reforming the NSA is so obvious, why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?
Thank you Dave Raggett
He wants Republicans to vote no on such a change so it can make them look bad. If he just did it by EO it would make him look bad in eyes of Republicans for abusing Executive power.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
What a fucking stupid question.
Expecting Congress to do its job under our constitution and fix bad laws. Everything should be by decree from the White House, that should really protect our liberties alrighty ....
Hasn't anybody listened to the man's statements on the subject? He thinks the NSA metadata collection is just peachy keen. It just hasn't been "explained properly" to the public.
Are you telling me a government with the capability of knowing who's talking to whom and what about, just about anywhere in the world, would willingly give up that power just because a few protestors got angry their info is getting caught up in the net? You must be joking.
Between vacations, golf, campaigning and late night TV appearances, where does he have the time?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This is typical of our current President. If pressed on the issue, he might say that he would "prefer" the NSA not to collect phone records on all Americans, but that so far the opponents of the system just haven't been vocal enough about it for him to take any action on the subject. "Hey, Mr. President, where's all that _change_ you promised us?" I'm sure he would prefer to to do all those things, except that his donors would not be too happy about that.
To think that I voted for this guy... twice. Not that the alternatives were any better, but sometimes I wonder if this administration really is any better than the previous one. And I seriously doubt the next one will be any better. Why? Because today the donors are the ones who are actually running the country (with the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling only adding insult to injury). The only solution I can think of is to attack this evil at its source by getting money out of politics.
Does the army volunteer to reduce the number of tanks it has? Does a police officer decide he needs fewer weapons at his disposal? Obama's job is to protect. Why would he give up some capability? Congress (the people) should be deciding what resources he is allowed to use to accomplish that task. And more importantly, ensuring there are checks and balances in place for compliance.
It's what they want. But he doesn't sign an executive order about it for the same reason that Congress doesn't bring up contempt charges for people who lie to them. They WANT to be lied to. They want to turn a blind eye to it all.
"i tip my hat to the new constitution
take a bow for the new revolution
smile and grin at the change all around me...
pick up my guitar and play
just like yesterday
when i get on my knees and pray...
we won't get fooled again"
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Lasting change often requires struggle in order to be properly enacted, it needs to be pushed through congress so that any attempt to reverse the change will also need to be pushed through congress. It's the same thing with the rescheduling of cannabis - the less effort is made putting things right, the less effort the next republican needs to make changing things back.
Next question.
I am constantly amazed at how naive the average American voter is. Obama was a guy who could give a good speech, but he had ZERO leadership accomplishments to his name. The most basic research into Obama's background should have given anyone pause that he could actually accomplish any of what he promised. He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.
For those of you who voted for Obama and are currently disappointed, I have a suggestion for you: next time do some background research on the person instead of just relying on campaign speeches and 30-second ads.
If Obama stops the NSA, a lone gunman will happen to make a really lucky shot and Biden will get to become the next president.
Obama: NO! YOU CAN'T!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Obama does not want to risk having his personal dirt released to the press (like his actual birth certificate). Besides, unless there was another Snowden how would we know if the intelligence community was obeying the executive order? It would be far more effective to publicly charge Clapper and Alexander with Treason and imprison them for life as an example to the next managers. Preferably hard time, breaking rocks in Leavenworth.
None of their illegal activities has made any difference in the safety of Americans. Intelligence agencies were told that the Boston bombers were dangerous radicals twice, and choose to ignore both warnings. Even with all the snooping going on, bombings and mass shootings still happen regularly. I do not believe for an instant that our intelligence community is that incompetent, so the only conclusion one can draw is that they know and don't care enough to tip off local authorities. There is plenty of past evidence to support this. In WW2 the government knew about Pearl Harbor three days before it happened, they allowed it to happen anyway in order to enrage the citizens and get America into the war. The government knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked by air, and they allowed it to happen as a way of cracking down on civil liberties. If the surveillance community knew for certain that a nuclear weapon was going to be detonated on US soil, THEY WOULD DO NOTHING to prevent it.
I think I would be willing to take my extremely minor chances of being killed in a terrorist attack to have our Constitution fully restored and our corrupt public officials in prison.
Since the author was apparently born yesterday, I would like to explain a simple concept. When politicians want naive citizens to believe they're doing something when, in fact, they are not doing it and do not want to do it, they will make a big show about doing it in a very roundabout and ineffective way. This has been going on for, oh, all of recorded history.
It was a program he approved and sponsored no matter what ignorance he claims. We need to hold him accountable, but unfortunately, there is an unhealthy celebrity love affair with this president that he is using to cover the usual dirt that comes with this office.
Bush wrote his orders in such a way that no other President can undo them. It requires congress, so this is 100% Bush's fault, and Obama is not allowed to undo it. I hate the people irrationally attacking him for something he simply cannot undo. Please attack the family responsible for it instead. The Bush junta created this and has left it in a state that Democrats cannot legally undo.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because terrorists. Go back to Russia, pinko!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping program...and the metadata program...Ron Wyden exposed it by talking about it openly in Senate speeches....Obama ended many of the programs Bush started
Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping/spying program
that's why I "blame" him for it
here's the evidence: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news... from **2006**
"NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"
Thank you Dave Raggett
This is bullshit. I'm in the center, and all I see are lefties saying "Obama knows best; he's doing what's necessary" and people on the right saying "war on terrorists.. rabble rabble if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."
I am center-left, and it's all horse shit. The fourth amendment has been gutted and I'm livid... as I am with Obama and Holder's misuse of drone strikes against US citizens.
... this is why obama is not on your side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence
you can't blame Dem's for Bush's policies
NSA warrantless wiretapping started under Bush, everyone knows this: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news...
Thank you Dave Raggett
If he issues an executive order to undo the spying, it is likely that those in congress who want the spying to stay will refuse to support Obama on other things he wants.
The post of 'President' is a now bureaucratic continuance of policy. One president just continues what was done before.
We need free thinkers and independent action takers in that branch.
There aren't in any other branches of the (American) government that can change the ship of state like the Presidency. Nor should they. The other branches are designed to slow things down.
I can envision Barack Obama trying to change things but literally every bureaucratic pomp-ass around him saying 'you can't do that'!! and I am sure they tell him: 'You Cant SAY that'. it is outrageous!
If I were the first black President I would probably stick with the status quo, just to keep the post open to the next qualified person who isn't a white male.
Where is the Teddy Roosevelt of our age?????
They became his programs the moment he assumed office. He is the embodiment of the executive branch, and all of its power is vested in him. Congratulations, you seem to have weaned yourself off of asterisks.
He does it on his own, and gets labeled a "dictator;" he punts it congress and gets labeled "indecisive." Neocons have made it a lose-lose for him, so I don't blame him for deciding to take them down in the process: he may be "indecisive" by sending the issue to congress, but at least it shows that the GOP is no better.
No executive order would even be required. It's not like it would be some major policy implementation across agencies. All he has to do is call Mike Rogers up and say "hey Mike, this is the president. Stop doing that."
Obviously he just doesn't want to
This is a perfect example republican or democrat, left or right, blue or red, its all the same... The quicker every one catches on the better we will be....
Hello, Obama has been the man in charge of the NSA for over five years. He's the head of the executive branch.
None of the politicians can really stop this surveillance state. If some politician had the courage to stop it and then some terrorist incident, however minor, were to happen, the opposing party would absolutely crucify him. They all know this. This is why both parties are behaving in the same way. Something really scary happened on 9/11. The politicians promised security in exchange for freedom and people happily agreed. Nothing new there at all. The difference was that this time around, computer technology allowed the creation of a perfect police state. All police states in the past have had a fundamental problem; a society can support only so many secret policemen. Not enough secret policemen to create the perfect police state. With computer technology, that limit is erased. I am afraid this is going to become quite dystopian.
What motivation does Obama have to stop this? His liberal base doesn't seem to care.
They do - when Democrats are not in office.
Which is why you should not vote Democrats into office, because everyone assumes they are doing as they should instead of checking.
Any other party will do, the Democrats have just become too entrenched and too powerful (as they control Hollywood and the media, or at least most of those organizations will look the other way for many offenses in the case of Democrats).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After all, it helped him steal the 2012 election and the dirt he gets on his political enemies makes it invaluable. If you want to run a dictatorship (and Obama's been governing LIKE one) you need "secret police" spying on your enemies.
Which is why he isn't going to stop it. His announcement was pure window dressing. Like everything else his bumbling Regime does, he wants to APPEAR to be against NSA spying for consumption by the Low Information Masses so that he doesn't get blamed for it, all the while his operatives dig deeper into our privacy.
Corporatism != Free Market
It's ok to be unhappy with Bush and Obama. That's allowed.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
not safe.
So naive had nothing to do with it. Neither did disappointed. Obama's base LOVES despotism and really don't give a crap about the Bill of Rights. I won't claim Bush's base is much better, although that I will point out that by the time Bush exited office he was vastly more hated than Obama is now ... which strongly implies that Republican base voters had a bit more moral integrity than Democratic base voters (Bush's supporters abandoned him almost totally).
Anyway, point the finger at the citizens of this country - but not for being so much naive as they are corrupt.
It was started by Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
Bush expanded on them.
Obama Expanded on that.
Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?
Because Obama is a fucking tool! Duh. Why the hell, after six YEARS of listening to this doofus and seeing what he does, do so many people still not get this? Fucking TOOL.
You looked outside the two mainstream parties, and that's what you should do, to stand on principle. Certainly a lot of people will vote for the "lesser of the two evils", but their vote is wasted. Instead of telling the mainstream parties that you are dissatisfied, they continue to give them a mandate to do nothing.
If 2016 has Rand running and winning the primary, then we'll have the first declared non-interventionist and fanatically pro civil-liberties candidate in the mainstream in my lifetime.
And with the senate controlled by democrats, none of those bills have ever been passed and became law.
Oh wait, reality just called and wanted to know if you would be home in time for dinner.
Hey now, you've hit the nail on the head. Fact is that it is corporations that wanted and bought and paid for it over time. No politician can go against it without risking retribution to their family or themselves. It's the phucking mob in corporate disguise. And because they didn't go Nuke off the bat looks like 9/11 was an inside job to begin with. They control every aspect of our lives now. That is not life.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because you say they "became his" doesn't mean you have proven any kind of point.
We have discussed why he's trying to go through Congress.
If NSA warrantless wiretapping is so universally despised **why arent' Republicans putting forth their own bills?**
Thank you Dave Raggett
the Bush admin admitted it from the beginning
Thank you Dave Raggett
of course it's allowed...
in the context of this conversation we all have to be consistent...i'm not saying you, phantomfive, are not consistent but just firing off criticisms with no linkage to the actual policies and laws & who originates them and votes for them
we don't have to just say "they all suck"...it's more complex than that and we're not idiots
of course conversations don't **have** to be consistent either...but productive discussion must have consistency...
Thank you Dave Raggett
in the context of this conversation we all have to be consistent...i'm not saying you, phantomfive, are not consistent but just firing off criticisms with no linkage to the actual policies and laws & who originates them and votes for them
Fair enough. As far as I'm concerned, Obama owned the program ever since he voted for immunity. He owned it even more when he had a chance to veto the patriot act.
Furthermore, when he's talked about changing the program, he doesn't talk about getting rid of it. He defends it. Make minor changes or something.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
NSA shill identified! Seriously, put in a little effort to be subtle next time. It just isn't working when you self-identify by going "you nerds" on a site where we're ALL nerds except for outsiders and shills.
I was going to blow off your comment, but your last point is valid.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Sites like Salon and The Guardian broke the Snowden story, and they keep running with it. There is a very long list of left-leaning sites that keep the issue highly visible, including HuffPo, DKos, Raw Story, TruthOut, DemocracyNow! and I dare even list Ars Technica in that group. Yes, there are Obama-worshippers who try to paint anti-NSA info and sentiment as fifth-column betrayal, but overall if you sample the comments in places like DKos and DU, you'll see some skirmishes over the issue of party loyalty (and accusations of racism) with the anti-NSA crowd handily coming out on top.
As for the lack of protest, lets just say the story was still developing in the fall and its been one heck of a winter.
Thing is, the people really behind the idea to wiretap any- and everybody, i.e. maintaining a big brother society, the people who have interest in this and the mindset to push for these ideas and carry them out - they see the state of the matter today as a hard won victory, decades in the making - and just as anybody who is afraid to loose their newly won property, they are afraid to loose it as well, and will not back down.
In short, getting to where we are with wiretapping today cost a lot of sweat and blood to these people, and the last thing they will allow is a step or steps in backward direction. The system as it is did not just appear out of nothing - a lot of folks have been putting a lot of hours into building it brick by brick, and they want their product to live on and return their investments. There are examples of far more benign ideas being pushed only because the incepting party wants ROI, end of story. This one however, is much more than just a lousy idea - it's a chance for a theocrat to see one of their dreams come to actual fruition.
And you think Romney would have been better?
Obama good people Facebook video indir
Only preferences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I watched a documentary about Obama, and one of his advisors was
discussing the decision to run. They talked about waiting another 4 years,
but felt that 4 years of work in the senate would generate too many things
that could be used against him. Almost every bill can be shown to hurt
someone.
I've read this whole thread. And as an Aussie sitting idly by watching my own government take after the US in all the ways that matter, confronted by the bickering and infighting on display here I'm concerned. It's getting more desperate everywhere, in the past there were many philosophical & political hard points that users could rally around on this site. One example being the Open Source movement having made for itself a soft-spot in the hearts and minds of many a nerd/geek. Slashdot has never been a sanctuary for M$/Apple zealots and so we could agree on much. But politically? Eh, seems to me we're more fractured than I've ever seen before because things have gotten so bad in post 9/11 America.
When under some future Republican President some Government efforts to spy on the American people in uncovered, we'll expect you to be here saying "We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one."
You know, when a bio-chip implant is required in all people, simplifying Government's ability to track the whereabouts of everyone, all the time, let's say...in an effort to prevent crime, facilitate healthcare (tied to your medical records), provide irrefutable positive voter ID.
I'm sure the big, powerful, stronger rather than weaker Government will be glad to count on your support.
Gitmo. Nor did he order the immediate withdrawal of US troops deployed around the world (notably those deployed fighting "Bush's Wars"). Nor has he moved to undo the PATRIOT Act.
None of the "evil" things Bush/Cheney were doing, that the left complained about so vocally, that Obama *ran* on...he's done zipnuts anything about.
To do these things would dismantle some of the Power, and I don't see Mr Obma as one who would let go of any aspect of power, especially Government Power that he controls.
The president can certainly reform many of the operations of the NSA where they are not otherwise advised upon by current law. But, executive orders are merely internal memos in this respect and can change just as whimsically with a new president. The legislative branch is the supreme power in the US government. They have the authority to reshape the other two branches that is unique in the American government. Obama's proposal on the NSA surveillance is much the same as it is with respect to immigration reform. He does not want the actions he makes to be transient and meaningless after he leaves office in 2016. The only way the NSA can be rigidly bounded is through laws which must come out of a collaboration between the Congress and the White House.
This metadata collection is disturbing but not nearly as Earth shattering at the revelations that the NSA has been actively working to subvert encryption standards for years. They have provided intentionally defective products to corporations while trading on the reputation of the US government. We are all diminished because of the deceptions conducted by the NSA in this regard. Metadata collection deserve censure but this active subversion of the cornerstone of data security is a hanging offense.
Obama is was a worse traitor than even the Bushes. IMPEACH! CONVICT! EXECUTE!
Because Obama is OK with it.
He could also start a complete draw down in Afgan, close Gitmo, and enact Gay marriage rights..
But he doesn't.
Then, let them. They passed the laws that allowed this to begin in the first place, right? It snowdened...err...snowballed from there.
Yes, the President can stop it with a stroke of a pen. Similarly, the next one can undo it with it a stroke of the pen also.
And, everybody will get up in arms about his not having done it sooner when it had CONGRESSIONAL approval. Right now, following the disclosures, allowing the agencies to find new collection techniques (not, necessarily against domestic targets) is essential. For him to stop it, could spell a national security disaster. Who really wants that on their hands?
Best solution is to tell Congress to get off their high-horses (ALL members), and write a law outlawing the activity. Get the Senate to agree and pass it accordingly. Note all those who object, what their objection is and who they are. Changing something of this magnitude requires bi-partisan support. Once they have bipartisan consensus, , send it to the White House for signature. If the President refuses to sign the bill into law, that will truly say something.
Just my take.
Who has not already come to the conclusion that Obama is the best smoke and mirrors President of modern times. The guy is all about perception and has nothing to do with transparency or doing what he says he is going to do. Obama has to be one of the best political example's of a poker face I have ever seen. He can read a teleprompter with the best of them. He is a puppet President who basically puts on a show in hopes for a legacy that will top all others. The NSA is simply another arm of the President that he chooses not to cut off. As my Mother always said. Judge people by what they do, not what they say.
What data and metadata do they have on the President, and his advisors, and the Cabinet? I mean, if they were listening to Prime Minister Merkel of Germany, and on, and on, why wouldn't they listen locally, if only to ensure their own funding?
mark
Obama is in it for the $$$.
The 1% have lots of that.
For $$$ all elected and appointed officials do what the 1% says.
He already got one, what does he need another for?
...to stop the NSA, then he does not need Congressional Approval for anything....aka Dictatorship.... ...not saying I agree with NSA...I'm saying ruling by executive order is the definition of Dictatorship!
A. It's Congress' job B. EO's can be changed with the next administration.
All of Congress and the President act out of fear more than anything else. Which do you think would hurt the Democrat's image more in the mind of the average citizen: to have the NSA snooping in his underwear, or to have a passenger jet take out another population nexus? All of you shouting about invasions of privacy are fighting a loosing battle. The average citizen (having barely a high school education and knowing very well the history of his favorite TV star and almost nothing about the constitution) will not care until he can see how the actions of the government actually affect him.
Why would Obama bring attention to this by issuing an executive order? That only exposes him to more derogatory comments from the Democrat's critics. Obama may be ignorant, but he ain't stupid!
NSA shill identified! Seriously, put in a little effort to be subtle next time. It just isn't working when you self-identify by going "you nerds" on a site where we're ALL nerds except for outsiders and shills.
I was going to blow off your comment, but your last point is valid.
Wow. You read a whole comment? You earn -1 gold stars.