8 ms·

So when Obama vowed to stop the illegal wiretapping of US citizens in 2007, he was basically just promising to legalize wiretapping and tax it?

by dkopi 11y ago

junto 11y ago
Tinfoil hat time.... Maybe after he was presented with "his file" he changed his mind. Nobody can stop the mighty intelligence machine now.
tomschlick 11y ago
A lot of candidates' policies change when they become president. I feel like this is due to a few reasons but a big one may be that they are read into many secret programs (like the NSA one), which give them a new perspective on the "threats". From that the "Not on my watch" mindset kicks in. Not excusing the government on the encryption debate. We absolutely need it. Just saying when you are given new, secret information that you didn't previously have, it's not unreasonable to change your policy.
- bmj 11y ago
  I assume this is not a new phenomenon. So, why does every president do it? Does he not have advisers who know something about the security apparatus? Someone that might say "you know, there's a lot of bad stuff you don't fully understand, so maybe you should roll back the rhetoric a bit?" Of course, campaigning on "I will increase the national security state" isn't a plank that will likely get a candidate elected. Note, too, that I am just criticizing Obama here. Every president breaks campaign promises, because most campaign promises are nothing more than marketing.
  - TheCondor 11y ago
    There is an asymmetry. And they take historical legacy seriously. If you spend trillions of dollars and erode fundamental freedoms to protect people in the aftermath of 9/11, the worst kind of objective case is you were maybe a bit misguided but your heart was in the right place and terrorism like 9/11 was unprecedented... Maybe it will cost too much, but nobody cares about the costs any more. If you dismantle the security apparatus and there is any notable terrorism, you are history's goat. Plus don't forget how many people are paid through that system. Plus, I find it difficult to really know where the public opinion is on this kind of stuff. The "no compromise" abortion position is becoming a bit more fringe and as such, politicians will say stuff to pander to the fringe but they typically don't act on it. Encryption and mass surveillance might be a big deal to "fringes"
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    > I assume this is not a new phenomenon. So, why does every president do it? Does he not have advisers who know something about the security apparatus? Someone that might say "you know, there's a lot of bad stuff you don't fully understand, so maybe you should roll back the rhetoric a bit?" The issue I have with this point of view is evident in the current presidential race. The candidate who says unequivocally that encryption should be illegal, Snowden should be executed, and white hat hackers should be jailed, is the current front runner for the Republican party (Trump), a party which historically has considered the right to privacy an absolutely necessary one. Yet here we have him campaigning on a platform of totalitarianism when it comes to communications and privacy, and the people at large are eating it up. It blows my mind that the very same people who hold the 2nd Amendment close to their hearts are willing to elect a man who wants to strip away their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
  - sremani 11y ago
    Because Governance and Statecraft are difficult, and need every day tools. The Theory and rhethoric miss lot of nuance and complexity of the situation. I am happy that a Politician once becomes president changes some if not many of their policies. Yes, there is an element of accumulation of power in some instances, but over all, the forces are much larger than one person or one team. That is why I find all the election promises esp. during the primary phase to be so funny, and incredible. I think Obama said it wonderfully in this article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obam... , No President starts with a Clean slate.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      I find it interesting that, as detailed in this article, Obama viewed his decision not to attack Syria as breaking with "the Washington playbook"; yet in the subject article of this thread, Obama is clearly playing straight out of "the Washington playbook" in supporting the government's ability to invade citizens' privacy.
- jqm 11y ago
  Could be that. Or, it could be that they are flat out cynically lying to the public. Not sure which it is, but too much of it going on lately. If there is really a need, give us more information. Everything doesn't have to be top secret. I simply don't believe that.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    I suspect tomschlick is correct (I've said similar things here before) but I also agree with you. I would feel so much better if he would come out and say, "When I was campaigning I said X- but now that I've learned more about it I'm breaking my promise and am going with !X."
- wcummings 11y ago
  >A lot of candidates' policies change when they become president. I feel like this is due to a few reasons but a big one may be that they are read into many secret programs (like the NSA one), which give them a new perspective on the "threats". From that the "Not on my watch" mindset kicks in. The folks in the military and at the NSA have long careers that outlast presidents, more likely they're pretty effective in manipulating politicians than there's some big secret that changes everyones perspective once they're in office.
- xtian 11y ago
  The question really becomes: how long are we going to tolerate the US government acting in our names and with our resources in a way that most individual citizens disagree with? Does anybody actually want to erode their own privacy or send their friends and relatives into armed combat? Even the people who ostensibly support these actions are just giving these agencies the benefit of the doubt that there is some great unspecified danger that us common folk can't be trusted with. If these threats do exist, I think it's past time that we bear the responsibility for them together.

So when Obama vowed to stop the illegal wiretapping of US citizens in 2007, he was basically just promising to legalize wiretapping and tax it?

by dkopi 11y ago

So when Obama vowed to stop the illegal wiretapping of US citizens in 2007, he was basically just promising to legalize wiretapping and tax it?

junto 11y ago

Tinfoil hat time.... Maybe after he was presented with "his file" he changed his mind. Nobody can stop the mighty intelligence machine now.

tomschlick 11y ago

A lot of candidates' policies change when they become president. I feel like this is due to a few reasons but a big one may be that they are read into many secret programs (like the NSA one), which give them a new perspective on the "threats". From that the "Not on my watch" mindset kicks in. Not excusing the government on the encryption debate. We absolutely need it. Just saying when you are given new, secret information that you didn't previously have, it's not unreasonable to change your policy.

bmj 11y ago
I assume this is not a new phenomenon. So, why does every president do it? Does he not have advisers who know something about the security apparatus? Someone that might say "you know, there's a lot of bad stuff you don't fully understand, so maybe you should roll back the rhetoric a bit?" Of course, campaigning on "I will increase the national security state" isn't a plank that will likely get a candidate elected. Note, too, that I am just criticizing Obama here. Every president breaks campaign promises, because most campaign promises are nothing more than marketing.
- TheCondor 11y ago
  There is an asymmetry. And they take historical legacy seriously. If you spend trillions of dollars and erode fundamental freedoms to protect people in the aftermath of 9/11, the worst kind of objective case is you were maybe a bit misguided but your heart was in the right place and terrorism like 9/11 was unprecedented... Maybe it will cost too much, but nobody cares about the costs any more. If you dismantle the security apparatus and there is any notable terrorism, you are history's goat. Plus don't forget how many people are paid through that system. Plus, I find it difficult to really know where the public opinion is on this kind of stuff. The "no compromise" abortion position is becoming a bit more fringe and as such, politicians will say stuff to pander to the fringe but they typically don't act on it. Encryption and mass surveillance might be a big deal to "fringes"
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > I assume this is not a new phenomenon. So, why does every president do it? Does he not have advisers who know something about the security apparatus? Someone that might say "you know, there's a lot of bad stuff you don't fully understand, so maybe you should roll back the rhetoric a bit?" The issue I have with this point of view is evident in the current presidential race. The candidate who says unequivocally that encryption should be illegal, Snowden should be executed, and white hat hackers should be jailed, is the current front runner for the Republican party (Trump), a party which historically has considered the right to privacy an absolutely necessary one. Yet here we have him campaigning on a platform of totalitarianism when it comes to communications and privacy, and the people at large are eating it up. It blows my mind that the very same people who hold the 2nd Amendment close to their hearts are willing to elect a man who wants to strip away their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
- sremani 11y ago
  Because Governance and Statecraft are difficult, and need every day tools. The Theory and rhethoric miss lot of nuance and complexity of the situation. I am happy that a Politician once becomes president changes some if not many of their policies. Yes, there is an element of accumulation of power in some instances, but over all, the forces are much larger than one person or one team. That is why I find all the election promises esp. during the primary phase to be so funny, and incredible. I think Obama said it wonderfully in this article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obam... , No President starts with a Clean slate.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    I find it interesting that, as detailed in this article, Obama viewed his decision not to attack Syria as breaking with "the Washington playbook"; yet in the subject article of this thread, Obama is clearly playing straight out of "the Washington playbook" in supporting the government's ability to invade citizens' privacy.
jqm 11y ago
Could be that. Or, it could be that they are flat out cynically lying to the public. Not sure which it is, but too much of it going on lately. If there is really a need, give us more information. Everything doesn't have to be top secret. I simply don't believe that.
- dhimes 11y ago
  I suspect tomschlick is correct (I've said similar things here before) but I also agree with you. I would feel so much better if he would come out and say, "When I was campaigning I said X- but now that I've learned more about it I'm breaking my promise and am going with !X."
wcummings 11y ago
>A lot of candidates' policies change when they become president. I feel like this is due to a few reasons but a big one may be that they are read into many secret programs (like the NSA one), which give them a new perspective on the "threats". From that the "Not on my watch" mindset kicks in. The folks in the military and at the NSA have long careers that outlast presidents, more likely they're pretty effective in manipulating politicians than there's some big secret that changes everyones perspective once they're in office.
xtian 11y ago
The question really becomes: how long are we going to tolerate the US government acting in our names and with our resources in a way that most individual citizens disagree with? Does anybody actually want to erode their own privacy or send their friends and relatives into armed combat? Even the people who ostensibly support these actions are just giving these agencies the benefit of the doubt that there is some great unspecified danger that us common folk can't be trusted with. If these threats do exist, I think it's past time that we bear the responsibility for them together.