Obama Praises NSA But Promises To Rein It In 306
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Josh Gerstein writes on Politico that President Barack Obama told Chris Matthews in an interview recorded for MSNBC's 'Hardball' that he'll be reining in some of the snooping conducted by the NSA, but he did not detail what new limits he plans to impose on the embattled spy organization. 'I'll be proposing some self-restraint on the NSA. And...to initiate some reforms that can give people more confidence,' said the President who insisted that the NSA's work shows respect for the rights of Americans, while conceding that its activities are often more intrusive when it comes to foreigners communicating overseas. 'The NSA actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people's emails, not listening to the contents of their phone calls. Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws.' During the program, Matthews raised the surveillance issue by noting a Washington Post report on NSA gathering of location data on billion of cell phones overseas. 'Young people, rightly, are sensitive to the needs to preserve their privacy and to retain internet freedom. And by the way, so am I,' responded the President. 'That's part of not just our First Amendment rights and expectations in this country, but it's particularly something that young people care about, because they spend so much time texting and-- you know, Instagramming.' With some at the NSA feeling hung out to dry by the president, Obama also went out of his way to praise the agency's personnel for their discretion. 'I want to everybody to be clear: the people at the NSA, generally, are looking out for the safety of the American people. They are not interested in reading your emails. They're not interested in reading your text messages. And that's not something that's done. And we've got a big system of checks and balances, including the courts and Congress, who have the capacity to prevent that from happening.'"
Next time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well sure, but then you'd also do away with any existing protections from disproportionate power of the wealthy and corporations. So you'd be trading something out of a George Orwell novel to the modern equivalent of a work by Charles Dickens.
There has to be a middle ground
Re: (Score:2)
Paul Rand is dead, though.
Re:Next time.. (Score:5, Funny)
At this point Rue Paul would be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
I rue the day Paul became an improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you didn't get the memo, Ron Paul and Rand Paul sold out to big business years ago.
For those of us who may not have time to read all the memos, could you please provide some supporting details?
Re:Next time.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can Google that phrase for anybody and get tons of hits. I think the poster was asking if you had any examples that you researched and felt had credibility.
Not sure why you had to make the Tea Party dig.
Re:Next time.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Common Trolling Tactics (Score:3, Informative)
Asking for evidence ad infinitum is also a common trolling tactic
...and making statements with no evidence, but claiming that the evidence is there for anyone who cares to find it, isn't a common trolling tactic?
You made a statement of fact, presumably because that fact is something you care for people to believe. So take a moment of your time to provide a link or two. Even if you're being "trolled" there will certainly be some non-trolls reading the comments as well who will learn from the link you provide.
Re:Next time.. (Score:4, Informative)
Telling someone to google it does not count. You need specific primary source examples. You should read up on logical fallacies, or perhaps just think a little bit about how what you're saying could be wrong. Because it is really easy to see you are wrong.
Re:Next time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A month before the Snowden leaks began, Rand Paul proposed legislation to reform the Third Party Doctrine: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/1037/text [congress.gov]
The 3PD is the principal that if you share information with a third party, even if that third party promises you confidentiality, and even if that confidentiality is never actually compromised, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply and the Feds can simply demand the information willy nilly. The 3PD totally guts the 4th Amendment -- it is the basis upon which politicians can say that the NSA's masspionage is "legal". Without the 3PD, everything the NSA is doing, at least with respect to people in America, is so unconstitutional a third grader could litigate and win the case against it.
Fortunately, even Justice Sotomayer is questioning the wisdom of this rule in the modern world where everything a person does requires sharing information with third parties -- you cannot navigate the modern economy without such sharing. See the paragraph beginning on PDF page 19 for her thinking on this issue: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf [supremecourt.gov]
Whatever Rand Paul's faults are, he was aware of the eviscerating effect of the Third Party Doctrine and took action to protect the 4th Amendment PRIOR to the leaks. This is not the type of legislation that $megacorp loves and supports. It's a pure civil rights issue. However, I don't think his reforms don't go far enough because the only effect it would have is to exclude illegally obtained information at trial. Considering how the Feds engage in intelligence laundering [eff.org], it is clear that a mere exclusion is insufficient -- there must be personal and agency penalties for a violation. To be fair to Paul, he didn't have this information when he wrote the legislation, but without personal consequences, it won't be that meaningful.
A decent example of such penalties is contained in the WA State statute regarding hidden mic recordings of conversations: See paragraphs 10 & 11 [wa.gov]: Violating the process for authorizing and recording a conversation surreptitiously, subjects the officers involved to personal prosecution for a class C felony and the agency to substantial fines ($25,000 per occurrence). The Feds need to have a little fear put into their hearts -- they need to ask themselves "If I can't do the time or pay the fine, do I really want to commit this crime?" And make no bones about it, the Federal government, due to its rampant lawlessness (e.g. collateral construction/intelligence laundering), is a criminal organization and needs to be treated as such.
Finally, back to the original point, Rand Paul might be a dick, but if you will step out of your partisan political mindset and consider the possibility that he just might have a good idea, we can get America back. Same goes for the tribal GOP -- both of you, Demoplicans and Republocrats alike, quit being so fricken tribal. The two parties are basically fungible anyway -- latch onto the very few good ideas and push them no matter who makes the proposal.
Re:Next time.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They sure did a horrible job against the Boston Bombers. Especially considering the Russian's TOLD US to watch out for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Self-restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
Aka, tying the cat to the bacon. Clearly self-regulation is the way to go, after all it worked wonders for the financial sector.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the reassuring warm fuzzy feeling one gets from the oversight of the courts and Congress... Evidently, we were shook up over nothing.
Oversight as in... Oops we forgot to oversee this here TLA.
Re:Self-restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Congress is basically powerless now (and you can argue whose fault that is.) They can make any recommendation they want from their oversight hearings, but it carries no weight when the president doesn't care and selectively enforces what he wants.
It seems that simply saying "I take full accountability" counts as some kind of action nowadays.
Re:Self-restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Self-restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem there is there are a few Congress people that are on the NSA's side
Not just a few . . . a bipartisan majority. [nytimes.com]
Re:Self-restraint (Score:5, Informative)
"I promise to fight hard against all those programs which I helped create!", says politician. Film at eleven.
Re:Self-restraint (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I see you are a Marxist of the Groucho persuasion.
Re: (Score:3)
say the secret word and the duck will fly down ... and ask for a campaign contribution.
Strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
He is (of course) right that they're not spying "directly" on the American people, with an actual human being reading your emails, recording your online activities, and tracking your physical movements. But that's just a clever strawman. The goal is not to "watch" you (as your nosey neighbor does) -- the goal is to record you (as a computer would). The ultimate objective is to build a permanent profile on each and every citizen, so that IF and WHEN they have the political motive to prosecute you, all they have to do is press a few buttons, review your history, and select from any one of the thousands of laws available to prosecute you -- most of which are victimless crimes (crimes against the state), not crimes against other individuals.
Re: (Score:3)
so that IF and WHEN they have the political motive to persecute you, all they have to do is press a few buttons, review your history, and select from any one of the thousands of laws available to prosecute you -- most of which are victimless crimes (crimes against the state), not crimes against other individuals.
Substitution is also true. cheers,
more oversight? (Score:2)
if you're asking for more government regulation and transparency I'm all for it...
Re: (Score:3)
A big problem with government is the lack of a higher entity to regulate. The best mechanism to date is the voter entity to remove politicians from office if they don't like something in government. However, that is extremely indirect. It's difficult and unwise to remove a politician over a single issue, and difficult for voters to change the issue directly. Representative democracy is the best form of government to date, but it has shortcomings.
One good aspect of doing business in the private sector is
Not interested in reading your text messages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not interested in reading your text messages r (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget the NSA likes to keep data around for a long time. So if in a few years, a friend of a friend joins an organization that has a similar name to a suspected terrorist organization, the NSA can go back and look at what you were saying now to try to incriminate you.
Re:Not interested in reading your text messages (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. If they're not interested in reading out text messages, phone calls, etc. then WHY ARE THEY ARCHIVING THEM? Either he's lying, or the NSA is guilty of a huge waste of funds for something they don't need.
Of course Obama doesn't understand privacy outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama, like all high-level politicians in the US, gave up his personal privacy as the entry fee for his chosen profession.
The difference between him and the rest of us is:
* He chose his privacy level. We can't.
* He has the power to make the government back off when they find something questionable. We don't.
Re:Not interested in reading your text messages (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, he knows why we're outraged. He's just not going to do a fucking single thing about it aside from promising unicorns and rainbows, which is what this speech was. He basically said they do none of the things that we've already seen evidence of them doing, and that we're okay because transparency and self regulation.
That aside, citizens aren't outraged enough to speak up/take action, so yeah - we keep sailing down shit creek.
Re:Not interested in reading your text messages (Score:4, Insightful)
its also our police force, as well, that is out of control. and the TSA and (and and and). the list is seemingly endless: all the government groups that can fuck you over and basically, if they get caught, its a 2 week paid vacation and slap on the wrist.
the nsa is just one group that is out of control. we have many and there is NO accountability or transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
They are interested in gathering data on us, but the content of messages is just not as important as the metadata. That's why they won't really fight anyone challenging them over reading emails and text messages but will fight tooth-and-nail to keep sucking in the metadata.
Don't foresee much "reining in"... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when he starts out by saying that the NSA spying on US Citizens is all reasonable and proper, since they don't actually read your emails or listen to your phone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't foresee much "reining in"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't foresee much "reining in"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just being a non-US citizen doesn't make a person a foreign power. Spying on the governments of other countries, fine. Spying on the citizens of other countries is just as bad as spying on US citizens.
I have no problem with it.
So just to be clear, Mr. ordinary self-interested citizen of the USA, as long as your criminal Stasi organizations and the douche politicians that enable them are only spying on the ordinary, law-abiding people outside your borders, you're good to go?
I can't help but think you'd be pissing furious if you found out the GCHQ had recorded all of your conversations for the last few years, and would be first to whine about the illegality of it all. And at how hard I'll laugh when it turns out to be true.
Did anyone else read this as... (Score:5, Insightful)
'The NSA actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people's emails, not listening to the contents of their phone calls. Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws.'
I read this as a VERY carefully worded line that rather than saying "the NSA is actually pretty reasonable" really says "if you think what we're doing in the US is bad, you should see what we're doing overseas." It practically comes out and says that they're doing all of those things "outside" the US borders. He also implies that all of the metadata collection that is done domestically is just fine.
Based on this, I would suspect that some program that the NSA agrees costs more that the intelligence gathered is worth is going to be cut, but overall nothing is going to change.
Check sand ball ants is (Score:2, Informative)
And we've got a big system of checks and balances, including the courts and Congress, who have the capacity to prevent that from happening.'"
Because that's working wonderfully, isn't it?
Not restrained by law? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
He meant "US law" when he said "law". The NSA is not bound by US law outside the USA.
Which is pretty much true of EVERY spy agency in the world, if you (properly) substitute "country of origin" for "US"....
Re: (Score:2)
He meant "US law" when he said "law". The NSA is not bound by US law outside the USA.
Which is total bull. US Citizens have been arrested for laws US they've broken outside of the US. Also, people who aren't even citizens of the US have been extradited for breaking US laws.
Re:Not restrained by law? (Score:5, Informative)
True, although that's not the default. Extradition, mostly for computer crimes, is based on the somewhat dumb theory that if something happens to an American computer, the perpetrator was "in" the USA for legal purposes, even if he or she has never actually visited the USA and has nothing to do with the country. There is also a small category of explicitly extraterritorial laws; for example, it's illegal, under U.S. law [wikipedia.org], for an American to travel to another country for the purpose of underage sex, as defined in the U.S. statute. Most laws aren't extraterritorial, though. If you murder someone in Germany, you won't be prosecuted under American homicide law, but German law. And if you smoke pot in a coffee shop in Amsterdam, you aren't violating U.S. drug laws.
Re:Not restrained by law? (Score:5, Funny)
Extradition, mostly for computer crimes, is based on the somewhat dumb theory that if something happens to an American computer, the perpetrator was "in" the USA for legal purposes, even if he or she has never actually visited the USA and has nothing to do with the country.
Funny how the NSA doesn't hold themselves to the same standard when they infiltrate systems outside of the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to add, as a US citizen go work in another country but don't follow the US tax laws and see just how much you are not bound by US laws when you return. I'm sure you'll be surprised by how much that statement is false when the IRS comes a knocking...
Re: (Score:3)
Of course my case might be a bit different because I don't intend to ever return to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't intend to return then likely you won't face any issues. But if, for example, you're a government contractor stationed in a foreign country and don't follow the tax code you will be smacked quite hard upon your return. And the relevant link from the IRS [irs.gov]:
If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you think they are really only spying on foreigners you're extraordinarily naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he just wanted to confirm that the NSA sees anybody that is not on US soil as the enemy. While this was already quite clear, it is nice to get that confirmation.
Re: (Score:3)
International law 101:
It is a sovereign's privilege to not obey other sovereign's laws. That, in effect, is what makes a sovereign a sovereign. If the other sovereign's object, they have to stop the offender.
In this case, that means stopping the intrusions through security or force. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize there are two completely different groups who are outraged for different reasons, right? As a US citizen I'm outraged at the illegal surveillance of my fellow countrymen, but it is their job to own your non-US ass with respect to eavesdropping. Your outrage is irrelevant to me.
Short-sighted nationalism. *sigh* You do realize that their efforts aimed at spying on "teh terrists" are weakening security for everyone, right? Enjoy the blackhats and hostile foreign governments using those same backdoors against you.
You don't hear us whining about GCHQ, Frenchelon, DGSE, etc do you?
You might not be but I know plenty of US citizens that are. I am outraged because the NSA is using groups like the GCHQ and their other Five Eyes buddies to skirt around the domestic surveillance laws.
very few politically brave become president (Score:4, Insightful)
they all play it safe by making this country less free in order to ensure no terrorist attack of any kind is does not happen on their watch. Maybe we all are to blame since we the people do not want to pay for the price of freedom which is a little risk.
Re:very few politically brave become president (Score:4, Insightful)
NSA feelings hurt, apparently (Score:3)
"Poor poor widdle NSA. There there. You can't play with all your toys anymore, but gold star for you!"
Duh (Score:2)
They are not interested in reading your emails. They're not interested in reading your text messages. And that's not something that's done.
More misdirection. Of course they aren't interested in those things, they want the more valuable location data and other metadata so they can build huge tracking database and SNR graphs.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA are a wonderful example of... (Score:5, Insightful)
...something both Demublicans and Repocrats may decry in public but can't resist using once in power.
In that respect Obama is Bush III.
Re: (Score:3)
That, and his use of "instagramming".
I seriously misunderestimated him.
Confusion of Amendments (Score:5, Insightful)
'Young people, rightly, are sensitive to the needs to preserve their privacy and to retain internet freedom. And by the way, so am I,' responded the President. 'That's part of not just our First Amendment rights and expectations in this country, but it's particularly something that young people care about..
This is a former constitutional lawyer saying that privacy concerns are a First Amendment concern. WT-actual-F? This is clearly Fourth amendment territory, but oh well. I mean, this is the president after all: we don't need facts when we have authority.
Also, the suggestion that this issue is all the more vital because young people care about it? What smarmy nonsense. It's a bloody constitutional crisis being characterized as an MTV award.
Re:Confusion of Amendments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confusion of Amendments (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, my mod points expired yesterday. The chilling effect on assembly is perhaps the primary concern with regards to the collection of metadata because the fourth amendment doesn't address whether or not the government can stalk you. It only says that the government can't search your persons, houses, papers, and effects without cause. The government stalking you does have a real chilling effect on who you choose to assemble with out of fear of government repercussion.
Re:Confusion of Amendments (Score:5, Insightful)
'Young people, rightly, are sensitive to the needs to preserve their privacy and to retain internet freedom. And by the way, so am I,' responded the President. 'That's part of not just our First Amendment rights and expectations in this country, but it's particularly something that young people care about..
This is a former constitutional lawyer saying that privacy concerns are a First Amendment concern. WT-actual-F? This is clearly Fourth amendment territory, but oh well. I mean, this is the president after all: we don't need facts when we have authority.
Also, the suggestion that this issue is all the more vital because young people care about it? What smarmy nonsense. It's a bloody constitutional crisis being characterized as an MTV award.
I came here to say the same thing. His obvious misunderstanding of the Constitution in this and other contexts kind of makes me question the whole "constitutional scholar" label.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a former constitutional lawyer saying that privacy concerns are a First Amendment concern. WT-actual-F? This is clearly Fourth amendment territory...
It is actually both a First and a Fourth Amendment concern, which is what enabled him to avoid the cognitive dissonance of bald-faced lying.
For the uninitiated, it is a Fourth amendment concern because it is an illegal search and seizure (seizure occurs at the time of collection and retention, not later when a human examines it). Consequently, those who feel their Fourth Amendment rights may be violated will tend to censor themselves, leading also to a valid First-Amendment concern.
Long story short —
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Obama is becoming the king of hypocrisy. I'm not sure my conscience would allow me to praise the life of Nelson Mandela in taking a stand against a government that was tyrannical and morally wrong while persecuting Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning (among others).
Translation (Score:5, Informative)
"1. The things that the NSA does are proper and justified.
2. We will strive to reduce the improper and unjustified things* the NSA does."
*Nothing
Got to protect our instagramming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got to protect our instagramming! (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't find Viet Nam on a world map let alone Iraq. They don't know what the three brances of the federal government are...
But Goddamned if they don't know about Instagramming, lolcats, Jersey Shore, Justin Bieber, endless shrimp Thursdays at Red Lobster and buying t-shirts at Wal-Mart and wearing them until they are dirty and buying another pack instead of washing them.
This is the America he is talking to, not you or I.
We are living in the modern Roman Empire.
Bread and Circuses and all that.
Re: (Score:3)
How belittling it is to couple one of our most essential rights with the phrase "texting and-- you know, Instagramming".
Thank you for noticing that as well.
Our right to communicate freely without government eavesdropping isn't merely to protect inane chattering of teenagers, or to prevent embarrassing selfies to fall into the hands of government workers.
Our rights are also there in order to allow us to criticize the government, be contrariion, have unpopular viewpoints, and rabble-rouse.
As a foreigner.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me just say that I'm not exactly wretched with guilt over not respecting the IP of US companies, seeing as my data apparently is fair game to the US.
Chilling (Score:5, Interesting)
"Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws"
Uhm, I guess the laws of foreign countries, and international law don't apply to our spy organizations. I'm also sure the constraint of our laws (1st Amendment, 4th Amendment) can be ignored at will as well. After all we are just trying to find all the terrorists, right ?!? (You know like the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/five-more-organizations-join-eff-lawsuit-against-nsa-surveillance)
As Ben Franklin put it, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
We need to simply shut down the NSA altogether, burn their records in effigy, and recall every elected official who ever voted in favor of their activities, or their funding.
Protect the rights of others (Score:2)
By accepting that the NSA is allowed to spy on anyone who is not American, without any limitations, the American people have let the genie out the bottle. This allows the NSA to gain access and capabilities that are then turned inwards to spy on Americans as well.
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” - Abraham Lincoln
The 3 Great Lies (Score:2)
(1) I love you
(2) The check is in the mail
(3) I promise I won't XTY &% &%RF *&MOH
I couldn't say the third one. But Obama is adding to the list
Pretty Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
"They're not interested in reading your text..." (Score:3)
Then why the fuck are they still doing it?
The spying isn't the biggest issue (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual spying isn't the biggest issue I have with the NSA (and GCHQ and ASIO and the others), the biggest issue is the way that these agencies are doing things that deliberately weaken computer security in the name of making it easier to spy on people.
Things like backdoors in who knows what software. Or pressuring software vendors under the table not to fix things that the NSA is using to spy. Or their various proposals for "key escrow" over the years. Or the potential compromise of security related algorithms and protocols (dual-ec-drbg for example is suspect and going back there were questions when the key-length of DES was made shorter by the NSA)
And lets not forget the cryptographic export controls (which still exist and can still be an impediment even if they have been wound back a bit) and what the government did to Zimmerman over PGP.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual spying isn't the biggest issue I have with the NSA (and GCHQ and ASIO and the others), the biggest issue is the way that these agencies are doing things that deliberately weaken computer security in the name of making it easier to spy on people
+1. This particular aspect of the Snowden revelations shocked and staggered me.
The NSA has always had two missions around signals intelligence (1) spy on the rest of the world and (2) make sure the rest of the world can't spy on us. And that second mission covered all communications important to national security, not just government comms. A few years ago I build an important commercial system that protected stuff related to credit card payments, and I had NSA oversight for the whole project because t
"Young people are sensitive..." -- not really. (Score:5, Interesting)
A have a friend who teaches political science and history at a state college. He has been asking his students how they feel about NSA surveillance and the majority opinion is summarized "I have nothing to hide, I'm not doing anything wrong, if it increases safety it's OK."
It doesn't sound to me like a lot of "young people" are taking a very strong civil-liberties position on this. The school he teaches at is a smaller state school (ie, not the main, big-name state university) so the student body tends to be more "mainstream" than the more leftish bias you might expect at the "prestige" main campus.
And when I raise the issue among my 40-something adult peers it's surprising how little people care and the "Where's your tinfoil hat?" look people give you.
Re:"Young people are sensitive..." -- not really. (Score:5, Interesting)
And when I raise the issue among my 40-something adult peers it's surprising how little people care and the "Where's your tinfoil hat?" look people give you.
You know, for years I've gotten looks from people that they thought I was too extreme in my views on rights, and my feeling that government is overstepping its limits. After everything that's happened, I've found that people lately have become slightly more receptive. I hope the trend continues.
But still, most people are willing to let their rights slide if it gives them the illusion of safety from terrorists, drug dealers, predators, and whatever villain we need.
Re:"Young people are sensitive..." -- not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a history teacher, I'm sure your friend sadly understands how most people don't appreciate the freedoms they have until they've been lost, and then the cycle repeats itself. Most people of the current generation haven't this seen first, second or even third hand and don't understand what typically happens when those in power exceed their authority. Hell, most people don't even understand that everyone has something to hide, they just think that if their head is down low enough no-one will care. And then, sooner or late, cue Niemoller.
0bama is full of shit as usual (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking action (Score:5, Interesting)
As a European, I did the one thing I could do, cancel the server I was renting in the US. Sorry to the very nice people who ran it but your government left me with no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, on second thought those meatballs are pretty good.
And their selection of outdoor rugs is fabulous, and I really need a new one for my deck...
Dammit! You got me!
Thanks, dude (Score:5, Informative)
Could you please send a note to the company in question, specifically telling them why you cancelled your service?
If this happens enough times, eventually US companies will start to poke the government about it.
Hook In Mouth (Score:2)
Cockroach in the concrete
Courthouse tan and beady eyes
A slouch with fallen arches
Purging truths into great lies
The little man with a big eraser
Changing history
Procedures that he's programmed to
And all he hears and sees
Altering the facts and figures
Events and every issue
Make a person disappear
No one will ever miss you
Dave Mustaine, 1988
Sharing between countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, documents released about that months ago. [reuters.com] And it goes both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
One of many such documented programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]
But the (almost total) cooperation started in 1942 -1944.
This must have been one of the "easy questions" (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'll be proposing more _self_ restraint." In other words, there will be no restraints. Restraint means there are rules on bad behavior that can't be broken without consequence. Self-restraint means there are no rules imposed on you by a third party, and it's up to you to decide whether the behavior is bad. The problem with self-restraint is that most government officials are deeply schooled in situation ethics, so whether behavior is acceptable is totally up to personal interpretation, personal goals, and personal motivation.
The promises "to initiate some reforms that can give people more confidence." In other words, as we have heard before, he believes it is a PR problem, and he has announced that his reforms, rather than changing things actually, will be mainly designed to change public perception of what they are already doing. At least he's being honest about it.
"The NSA actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people's emails, not listening to the contents of their phone calls." The NSA already said they pull in so much data it isn't possible for them to separate domestic from foreign traffic. It is on the order of petabytes. When he says they are not listening to phone calls, reading emails, etc., bear in mind they are recording and storing those very things. They just don't have a live person sitting in a chair listening to them right this moment. The only reason they supposedly aren't is because of the "self-restraint" he just mentioned. However, they can store that data as long as they like, until they discover a novel legal theory that says they can listen to it. With regard to the Snowden documents, the GCHQ has said they are "out there" and don't seem comforted by the self-restraint of the journalists that are filtering through them.
"Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws." False. It is constrained by treaties, which are like laws but enforced with nukes.
To Whom It May Concern (Score:3)
You are wasting a shit ton of money on Terrorism protections, meanwhile falling down in the bathtub is a greater risk to American lives.
Every year: Heart disease and accidents cause Four Hundred Times more deaths than a 9/11 scale attack. We will fight you to the death for the freedom to drive fast cars to fast food restaurants. We do not need protection from the pathetic "terrorist threat". Stand terrorism next to ANY other threat and you will see why our HUGE budget to fight it is ridiculous and proponents of spending such should be fired on sight. They say Terrorism is nothing to sneeze at, but EVERY YEAR the Flu kills SIX TIMES more people than a 9/11 scale attack. [cdc.gov] They pay for submarines to tap into under sea cables to prevent terrorism? Body scanners and gropers at transportation hubs? No longer.
The public needs proportional protection from proportional risk. The budget for terrorist protection should be less than that of the Flu prevention, and less than what we spend to preventing you from braining yourself on the bathtub faucet by accident. It has become clear that our protection is not the government's agenda. It seems that the agenda is to funnel as much money possible into the pockets of those who benefit by increasing the size and reach of the Military Industrial Complex.
You have made Eisenhower's Nightmare come true. [youtube.com]
Re:Hey Obama! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws."
and how is that working out for your foreign relations?
This. I find it appalling that this is seen as acceptable. The surveillance power that is now possible is not equivalent to anything we've seen before and changes the nature of the "lawless" foreign surveillance. Surveillance of foreigners used to mean having them spy on you when visiting their country plus some high value target monitoring in their own countries, but the cost and risk of surveillance enforced the selective nature of it. To treat every foreigner like an enemy is madness. For the most part non-US citizens felt that the US was an ally or at least harmless. Now the day-to-day decisions of all those people will take into account that the US is actively working against them. It won't be long before that is ingrained into the culture, tools and business practices of the rest of the world. Imagine the US being thought of as a worldwide Stasi: the day-to-day the common sentiment amongst the rest of the world will be "%*$k the US".
Re: (Score:3)
Very stupid and the majority of us is proving him right.
e.g. ooh, Kardashians! Sorry, I can't care about stuff that will get me locked up or killed later. I got boobies and asses to watch.