Slashdot Mirror
Obama Asks Congress To Renew 'Patriot Act' Snooping
mi writes: President Obama has asked the Senate to renew key Patriot Act provisions before their expiration on May 31. This includes surveillance powers that let the government collect Americans' phone records. Obama said, "It's necessary to keep the American people safe and secure." The call came despite recent revelations that the FBI is unable to name a single terror case in which the snooping provisions were of much help. "Obama noted that the controversial bulk phone collections program, which was exposed by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, is reformed in the House bill, which does away with it over six months and instead gives phone companies the responsibility of maintaining phone records that the government can search." Obama criticized the Senate for not acting on that legislation, saying they have necessitated a renewal of the Patriot Act provisions.
:\
And conservatives were worried that Obama would change everything that Bush did.
Obama has promised again and again to safeguard our liberties. Now he has morphed into George Bush. What did I miss?
Bulk data collection provides *very* useful information for people in a position to do market manipulation on wall street.
Like, you know, politicians, who are allowed to do insider trading as per special laws that protect them.
That's all Obama is after.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Not that it matters who I quote, or what anyone says. This and things much like it will likely get renewed, or they'll happen in secret.
I don't have any good solutions, but it doesn't have to mean I like the idiots in government or their idiotic decisions.
This sig left intentionally blank.
is reformed in the House bill, which does away with it over six months and instead gives phone companies the responsibility of maintaining phone records that the government can search." Obama criticized the Senate for not acting on that legislation, saying they have necessitated a renewal of the Patriot Act provisions.
What nonsense. Moving the storage task to the phone companies does absolutely nothing to make the collection less nasty. Enacting the "reform" is, at best, no different than just renewing the Patriot Act as it is. But that's "at best". In reality, it's even worse, as requiring the telecoms to keep this data guarantees that the telecoms will use that data -- so the end result is an expansion of the the amount of spying that is being inflicted on us.
There is no need for the Patriot Act to exist any longer. There hasn't been for many years. The War on Terrorism is really the war on Fundamentalist a Saudi inspired Sunni Wahabi radicalism. The Patriot act should go away and the US powers that be should focus its efforts on neutralizing the Sunni-Wahabi threat by whatever means necessary.
Unfortunately we are taking the wrong side here in helping the Saudi's eradicate a Shia Minority in Yemen. Because the American leadership is the village idiots. We're also responsible for the Sunni Wahabi's creating ISIS in Iraq because we over threw a Ba'thist regime and created a power vaccum.
The "War on Terrorism" will end only when the Saudi's Sunni Wahabii ability to create colonies like this is neutralized.
[_] Because drugs
[X] Because terrorists
[_] Because think of the children
[_] Because infringement
It's probably the best way to get conservatives to let go of the Patriot act...
We need to elect someone who puts an end to this nonsense. Maybe the guy who said this would be a good candidate:
Oh, wait...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If the NSA had only been spying on terrorists we wouldn't even be having this conversation. (although it's not really a conversation, but you get my point)
Why would the NSA and CIA be spying on Congress? Is it someone's goal to set up the apparatus of a police state?
Why is the NSA spying on the EU Parliament? Are they looking for terrorists in Parliament?
See: TED How the NSA betrayed the world's trust — time to act
at: 4:30
also see at: 12:40 (or at 12:00 for better context) "I don't think they're looking for terrorists in Parliament."
(see at: 6:00 if you believe in encryption golden keys)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
convicted international war criminal
CITATION NEEDED
Who would that be? It isn't GWB, because there has never been a legitimate trial. I dare you to point to Malaysia kangaroo court ruling. Because if you think that is okay, then you also should subscribe to all of their laws, including those against gays and drug users.
Here is a quote from Polifact ..
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Arrest warrants and the International Criminal Court
Interpol, the international police organization, does not list any outstanding arrest warrants for Bush or Cheney in their searchable database. Meanwhile, experts in international law said they were not aware of pending warrants, particularly from the most obvious entity that might issue one -- the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We'll never know, but I suspect still better than McCain or Romney despite Obama's shortcomings. There's the counter argument that had it been a Republican president the Democrats wouldn't be as divided in their loyalties, but I doubt it would have mattered in the end and there's a lot of things that could have gone much worse over the last 7 years.
Having said that, It is interesting how much Obama has gravitated toward Bush's positions on a number of topics throughout his presidency. Had McCain or Romney won, I suspect they would have taken similar positions (not that they weren't there already). Part of me wonders how much influence has been exerted on both Bush and Obama, and if neither could accept the consequences that would have resulted from deviation from those positions.
Regarding Obama personally: Perhaps the presidency changed him, or perhaps his campaign was a lie to co-opt the enthusiasm of the masses. I don't think we'll ever really know. We'll just have to hope that his decisions to do things like bail out Wallstreet, sign us into corporate-crafted trade agreements, and continue domestic spying are better than the alternatives. It seems to me though that if that really is the case, our situation is every bit as bad as the most cynical of us say.
How can blue shit smell worse than red shit? Just painting it in a different color doesn't change that it's still shit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Note to Obama: You are being lied to.
Seriously, and trying to sidestep most of the political angles: This is what happens when a person with authority collects a small set of advisers -- in an effort to cut noise/increase focus/get to data-driven decisions -- and then those advisers are not challenged or regularly rotated or infused with new thinking.
This instance pains me, partly because by my citizenship I'm on the wrong end of the Patriot Act aka "Putin's Law" ...but even more because I make my living by gathering and giving security and privacy advice on both the technical and compliance sides. When Obama's not even getting the quality of mid-market commercially-available advising, we're all in deep doo-doo.
To wit:
- Let's get real: metadata IS the data. Who/when/how/where you called is just as important as the what/why content of the call. The ears don't get much more totalitarian than this, we just don't have totalitarian fists yet. (Oh wait... *watches news about street cops outfitted with combat armaments and light tanks, then acquitted for movie-style executions*)
- NSA's collection of citizen's communication data and metadata have not led to even one single foiled terrorist plot. Not one. It's not even the right model to catch the stuff we know about in hindsight. The only reliable detection tool for decades has been manual notification by family and friends to authorities, and there's still no good unified repository and workflow system to handle it.
- There are multiple documented instances of abuse where the collected information was too tempting for federal employees not to do something stupid or illegal or both. (LOVEINT is almost funny, but multiple instances of commercial espionage have been alleged and documented.) If we amass this kind of information, people will use it for whatever purpose they imagine -- justified or illicit -- because admitting there's no legitimate function is the worst option of all.
- In the big picture, total security really does obliterate freedom. How I wish we could discuss that without hyperbole. Maybe we could stay grounded by involving the French, who are further into a discussion about how overreaction to Muslim immigration will destroy their governing principles as effectively as any perceived human threat.
- It deeply troubles me that Obama appears to have no better tech-sourced intel than 3rd tier CEOs buying security guidance from consultancies with 800 number to a sales guy and $150/hr bill rate.
What a sad state of affairs.
I think not...(*poof*)
I am pretty sure that they were referring to the 4th amendment (from Wikipedia):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now I'm a Libertarian, and I read that as: "If you don't have a fucking warrant, then you don't get to collect SHIT. No metadata, no *actual* data, no GPS data, nothing. It is real simple, if you are trying to build a case against me, then you had better have a warrant to collect ANY data (at least that is the way it should be). In reality, there is no constitution any more -- it is just a faded memory.
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
Can we just fuse them back into the "Democratic Republicans" and be done with the whole show every other year? It's getting tiresome and it's mostly a waste of money and TV airtime, and in general a huge insult to the collective intelligence of the US people.
Seriously. Why not change the whole election game to something like the American Idol election? Everyone can vote as often as they like, corporations get a mass text rebate so they don't lose their right to choose who's going to make their laws, and the money for the messages goes to a fund for nations with crippled economies. In other words, hand it to the IRS.
And the candidates don't have to lie to us about what they claim they'd do, they have to sing and dance for us so they at least entertain us instead of just making us mad.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we, the people, can't even look at the content of a trade deal, I'm not too enthusiastic about letting the government look at the content of my activity.
For my money, Mr. Obama. the NSA, et. al. scan take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The problem with your assessment is that you are actually taking the FBI for their word. They are saying they need this and the only problems are possibly too much data. Of course they are saying they need this.. but the real purpose isn't for terrorism or even crime-fighting. The purpose of bulk record storage on American citizens is to have a dossier on anyone that may end up being a threat to the existing internal power structure of the US. That is why they are willing to spend so much money on a program that has so far proven to have very little use. I do not believe there has been any point in history where so many resources were spent with such few results.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Explain Joe Biden.
You Americans been slowly turning your republic into a democracy over the last 100 or so years. That's why you're headed down the shitter.
A much "simpler" change (in terms of concept, not ease of execution) would be to go re-learn the concept of Federalism and take a bunch of power away from the Federal government and give it to state and local ones. The less the Federal government has responsibility over, the less harm unaccountable Congresscritters can do.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Right, just because a 3rd party holds my data for me doesn't mean it's fair game. The bank can't authorize a search of my house just because I have a mortgage with them.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Except this is all bullshit because the courts have already ruled that the Patriot Act does not authorize snooping. It was a generous reading that let this happen in the first place. For those wondering this was probably the biggest reason that the EFF pulled their support: because if an amendment to the Patriot Act was to acknowledge that snooping was restricted then it would also implicitly acknowledge that snooping was legal when not violating those restrictions. Not passing the extension would actually do more to kill snooping than the proposed changes being made. (in the legal sense they will obviously find some other bullshit from 50+ years ago to justify this crap)
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Anyone who still supported Obama after he signed that first extension to the PATRIOT act is either a hypocrite or a fucking idiot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bingo. The old UK comedy "Yes Prime Minister" was a rather cutting illustration of this phenomenon at work.
What happens to someone when they become the prez? Enormous numbers of apparently experienced people begin telling you all kinds of secret things. They stress the importance of secrecy. They tell you about this plot or that plot. They say it's vital they get new powers and they not-so-subtly imply that if you don't help them Women And Children will DIE! And although it's left unstated you know perfectly well that if you don't give them what they want, you will see leaks in the press from anonymous officials that paint you as a prevaricator, as weak, as unconcerned for the lives of Patriotic Heroes And Their Women And Children.
The problem any US President has, and I daresay many other countries presidents, is that they are immediately submerged into a fantasy world woven from the agendas of the people around them mixed with their own pre-existing views, and those people are themselves also in a slightly less extreme form of a personal fantasy world and so on all the way down. A toxic brew of patriotism, belief in American exceptionalism, militarism and most of all pervasive classification means that it's impossible for a prez to penetrate the fog of misinformation that surrounds them. They can be manipulated into believing nearly anything because it would take an incredibly strong willed personality to say directly to the senior bureaucrats feeding them classified intelligence, "I think you are bullshitting me and I am going to personally audit your shit and prosecute you if you're lying to me".
Obama is very much NOT a strong willed personality. He sees himself primarily as a reasonable man who finds compromise between different factions. This makes him easily manipulated: all it takes is for people who agree to present him two apparently opposed positions - one extreme and one very extreme - and Obama will reliably pick something that is quite extreme. And the officials around him know that.
In hindsight it should have been obvious. Obama has no real track record of achievement in politics. He supported no particularly controversial positions, or showed any particularly clear thinking. Compared to Bush he seemed like a genius of course but Bush was a fucking man child, so that wasn't hard.
Almost certainly not. But it looks like Rand Paul is made of stronger stuff than Obama. Paul consistently argues for positions that piss off most of his party. He seems able to come to conclusions about things himself regardless of what other people believe. He seems to have fairly strong principles. He doesn't come across as the sort of wishy-washy people person that Obama is. If there's any US politician that actually might tell the people in his secret briefings "stop bullshitting me or I fire you", it's probably Rand Paul.
When Palin was selected to be McCain's running mate, she had the highest approval rating of any of the 50 governors.
The only surveying company to come up with that is some podunk company in Alaska. Just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's meaningful.
Then the left wing media went to work and convinced all the mindless cretins like yourself that she was the devil incarnate.
She is the epitome of someone who is both stupid and suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Her speeches are pure fucking word-salad. They are unlistenable, because they contain not just no information, but rather /negative information/. I cannot stand to listen for more than 20 seconds at a time. To make me actually listen to a whole speech would entail something like what happened to Alex in "A Clockwork Orange." After which, you would have to commit me via an IEA to a mental hospital.
"Grow a brain."
You forgot the "Morans."
--
BMO