Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection? 312
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."
Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Funny)
Or they can manufacture it and have demonstrated it to him.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I have some residual trust in the good in people. Maybe I am wrong there.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, there's not much evidence of that.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
What motivation does Obama have to stop this? His liberal base doesn't seem to care. It actually helps him in the center, where many people value security over privacy. The only organized political opposition is from the Paulite faction of the Republican Party, that is not going to support him, no matter what. So he has nothing to gain by changing the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, we should file a motion to rename the dollar to the fiat, and the united states to house of corporate spam, and repaint the white house to a more appropriate Halloween theme...
His liberal case cares very much (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that his liberal base doesn't care. It's that they can't really say anything or their anger will be used to help the Republicans. It's one of the side effects of a two-party system. A politician (especially one in power) has to SERIOUSLY screw up to hear it from their own party. This is what makes establishment Republicans so uneasy about the Tea Party.
This is risible! (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
"On US soil" was neither claimed by the grandparent, nor is it a necessary condition for qualifying the drone strikes as misuse.
WHICH clause in the Constitution says the Fourth Amendment only applies on US soil, you totalitarian asshole?!
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, the Kennedy assassination tapes that were shot from a completely different angle than the Zapruder film and hasn't been released to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
the Kennedy assassination tapes
Kennedy shot himself. Stanley Kubrick had already been secretly contracted to film the moon landings at Area 51, and so he was just instructed to fake an assassination tape on the side.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the *are* recording a lot of phone calls. That's just a different program Snowden released info about - and there have been dozens of them.
And "just metadata" allows them to track your location, see who you speak to, and much more:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [washingtonsblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever ordered a pizza over the phone? Then you may have called a number that is associated with terrorists (who also happen to like pizza).
Perhaps you don't care about your phone calls and emails being intercepted. Probably, I don't really care about mine, but I do care about interception of the communications of my elected representatives and their staff, and so should you.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well done at both keeping ignorant of current events and misreading my post.
The point is that, if you call a pizza place that is also called by a "terror suspect", you become connected to the suspect and all your communications (not just the pizza orders) are more likely to be monitored.
I notice that you ignored the very important point that we should all be concerned about monitoring of the communications of politicians and their staff.
You should not post as anonymous coward, more like anonymous idiot, or is it anonymous shill (it is not be beyond the realm of the possible that the intelligence community are posting in /. trying to influence opinions).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't call people on watch lists, I don't call any known criminals, and if they want to see that I called my dentist or my mom last week, yay for them. That's all they will find.
Actually, turns out your dentist donated money to a charity that was found to be funneling money to 'terrorist' Muslim organizations (one that feeds Muslim children made homeless/parentless by a drone strike or something, y'know, 'terrorist' actitivies), and by being one of his dental customers you have been indirectly implicated in his terrorist activities. Oh, yeah, that and to that friend of your mom that illegally downloads music... damn, you have so many terrorist/criminal ties, they might as well ju
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Interesting)
The part I agree with is that I personally am not concerned whatsoever with the metadata. At all. And the only reason you see most of the media coverage is because folks don't understand what metadata is. If you polled the public right now you would largely find them believing the government is secretly recording and archiving all of our actual phone calls. They aren't.
Sorry, but metadata is all that is needed to invade privacy [techdirt.com], and they're collecting it on everyone. It's not okay, okay?
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't call people on watch lists, I don't call any known criminals
How you would know? Do you have a copy of the watch list or known criminals? Are those lists published? Being distrustful of government is not "groupthink". It's called paying attention to history.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're just easily duped. Obama is, like Bush, a statist who supports the government's "right" to imprison, torture, and kill whoever they want for whatever reason they decide.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read his autobiography. He is a political nobody, with no family of note, who was an average community organiser in Chicago, who happens to have brilliant oratory skills. That means he is bankrolled by someone very powerful, and thus will do what he is told.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the typical pattern. Hate someone for being different from yourself, then go back and act like every one of them harmed you in some way that justifies it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure being [insert political ideology] is a choice. It's not like you can simply will yourself to take a different worldview.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Doing stuff for a friend" is friendly and altruistic when I *choose* to do it. When something's forcibly confiscated from me to be given to a stranger, it's not me "doing stuff", it's not for a "friend" and it's certainly not altruistic. It's also not altruistic to vote for a bill that does that, or to vote for the guy who votes for that bill.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Insightful)
Without going into whether I agree with what you say, it seems to me that whenever people say "Most people...", it is typically to say that most people have opinnions that are close to the speaker's opinnions, even when most people are not really like that at all.
However, most people spend most of their time with people who think relatively similar to themselves, adding to their own thoughts that "most people" are like them. I'd say that "most people" (and I admit, I fall into the exact same bias that I mentioned before) just want to be left alone to do whatever they want to do. Sure, people like government to do this or that (police, roads, teach kids and stuff), but by in large, I think people just want left alone. I've been doing some travelling to some various cultures, and noticing how, as much as people are different, we're all pretty much the same. People just want to do their thing and not have to be bothered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As I recall, when Obama was in the Senate he voted in favor of the Patriot Act extension and warrantless wiretaps. I don't know what you are basing your trust on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe it. Obama never actually showed up for votes when he was in the Senate.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have some residual trust in the good in people.
Yet at the same time you accuse $omeone else of blackmail. What a confused person you are.
Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, you actually fell for the "Obama the Savior" bullshit?
Did you know that the word gullible doesn't appear in the dictionary?
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about politicians, not good people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not psychotic, sociopathic, a significant portion of politicians (and CEOs for that matter) are sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. These are his programs. He wants them to continue.
Re:Bush started warrantless wiretapping (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given how wrong you are, your sig is quite apropos.
Several of these programs date to after 2008. The rest Obama would have definitely been briefed on. Congress may not have known, but if you think he didn't you are pulling the wool over your own eyes. Just because you were in the dark doesn't mean he was. Notice how he has never claimed to not have known about what the NSA was doing? He knew because he authorized it. All of it.
These are his programs. Believing anything else is willful self-deception.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
if reforming the NSA is so obvious, why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?
Gee.. I wonder if the (R)'s don't have a hard-on to bring on the police-state as much as the democrats? I *used* to be a Republican, after about 1/2 way thru BushJr's second term, I got fed up with the shitting that BOTH parties are doing on the Constitution and dumped the R's.. I held my nose in 2008 and voted for McCain and gleefully voted for Romney in 2012... BUT the vast majority of Republicans nowadays are simply "Democrat-Lite".. They want to shit on the Constitution as much as the D's do... I'm beg
Re: (Score:2)
With everyone hating on the R's the D' President is allowing NSA spying and even went after whistle blowers....
All I hear on the news is people bitching about the issues and republicans, where is the outrage for D's?
The US has spousal abuse syndrome for politicians. He only hits me because he loves me. I stand by my elected official..
Re: (Score:2)
Genuinely interested, how do Dems shit all over the constitution?
evidence? (Score:2, Informative)
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... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is very simple, so please keep up.
The only problem the ruling class has with ANY of this is that the plebs became aware it was happening. The goal now is a combination of appeasing the plebs with empty action and/or stalling long enough for them to forget (about 3 mins for most) and go back to chewing their cud.
That is it. That is all there is too it. It is no surprise.
The other mistake here is assuming that they were as surprised as you at t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
>Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.
Funny you can mention that now and get upvoted. If you mentioned that back during the first election it was "racist this, and racist that" you just dont want a black president! Then he got the Nobel peace prize, and few of us said, he didnt do anything to warrant it and was down voted.
Track record speaks volumes.
The author is nauseatingly naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Re (Score:5, Interesting)
He seems to have worked on the assumption that it was better to have no failures for which he could be blamed, rather than aiming for successes for which he could get credit.
In some people's minds, lack of failure is a surer measure of success, than attempting success (and possibly failing, thereby).
Re: (Score:3)
Presidents these days are mostly elected for their charisma. You have to look at who a candidate associates with to get an idea of what they are actually going to do. For example, Obama putting 5 RIAA lawyers in the DOJ then pushing for things like ACTA. It's usually the advisors that come up with the ideas, so analyze who is advising them. This is probably why the NSA stuff has been consistent between Bush and Obama.
As for the lack of accomplishments that's another plus in an election. Voters tend to
Re: (Score:2)
How about the next prez? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Excellent plan! With all that added pressure making it a top priority we should be able to anticipate seeing Congressional action on it by, say, 2076.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress never voted to authorize this activity, Obama authorized it. It is therefor up to Obama to unauthorized it.
Actually I think its most likely this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actually I think its most likely this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So do I: Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it have enough votes? Hard to say.
Re: (Score:2)
This is almost completely irrelevant. The Patriot Act does not authorize mass surveillance to begin with, so it seems unlikely its repeal would result in any change in behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope and change... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Maybe he's FOS? (Score:2)
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."
Re:Maybe he's FOS? (Score:5, Funny)
Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
He doesn't want to. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
More racism (Score:2)
Between vacations, golf, campaigning and late night TV appearances, where does he have the time?
Obama leads from behind (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wolf-pac.com].
Because they endorse it. (Score:2)
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.
pete t. said it all 40 years ago (Score:2)
"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"
Mister President, can we have privacy PLEASE? (Score:2)
Obama: NO! YOU CAN'T!
Because no matter what Obama says (Score:5, Insightful)
Because terrorists (Score:2)
Because terrorists. Go back to Russia, pinko!
Elite fear political awakening... (Score:4, Informative)
... this is why obama is not on your side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This guy *just now* figured it out? (Score:2)
Hello, Obama has been the man in charge of the NSA for over five years. He's the head of the executive branch.
He can't stop it, none of them can (Score:3, Informative)
Simple, Obama doesn't WANT to stop it! (Score:2)
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 h
If he did everyone would scream how he made us (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
So in 2007 Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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."
Re:So in 2007 Obama... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So in 2007 Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So in 2007 Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't. I didn't vote for Romney *or* Obama. There are other options, even in a two party system. If you vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, you're still voting for an evil scumbag, which is immoral. I'd rather vote for someone I actually like, even if it has zero effect on anything (but it doesn't, because it can send a message to other parties; or cause third parties to adopt policies that the two main parties were ignoring, which gets them more votes, which then sends a message to the two scumbag pa
Re: (Score:3)
Executive orders can only live in grey area of no direct law. They are constitutionally questionable in the first place, but they absolutely cannot be used when there is actual law in place. The law takes precedence.
Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.
Re:No Law (Score:4, Informative)
The facts do not support your statement There are dates in the Obamacare law that the president has unilaterally changed:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03... [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my second paragraph? It's the first time any president attempted that and has yet to play out.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you see an Employer Mandate that I don't?
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch has the authority to delay implementation of laws in order to make those laws work better. This has been done THOUSANDS of times in the past, and has been upheld by the courts whenever challenged. It is absolutely a routine part of how the American government works.
Republicans are strategically howling about this, just like they did when he appointed "czars" to manage certain departments (a practice started by Nixon). It's just a tactic. A trick, to make the uneducated masses think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.
Yes I am sure they'll put on a nice show and make a phony speech or two against it. Truth is, the corporate sponsors, bankers, and financiers who own both parties will be pleased and they're the ones who matter.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They will issue EOs unilaterally changing Obamacare, just like Obama has. e.g. 5 year maximum subsidies, then everybody pays full price. No employer mandate (push the date back forever). etc etc.
Obama has pushed EOs past the breaking point. He's Caesar, just nobody has noticed yet. I almost hope Hillary wins, Obama is not going to leave office if he loses to a Republican (and his followers will eat it up; 'election was rigged, election was rigged!').
Re: (Score:2)
You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!
Re: (Score:2)
Good attempt at satire. You've got the complete lack of logic down (executive orders that can't be changed, funny.) but not the language. The real idiots would have refered to Bush as Shurb or some such and been _much_ less coherent.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama does not support a policy of warrantless wiretaps
Then why did he vote in favor of it when he was in congress? Why didn't he veto it when he had the chance as president? Don't deceive yourself with partisan blindness.
Bush started warrantless NSA spying (Score:3)
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... [usatoday.com] from **2006**
"NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"