8 ms·
Why Is Obama Expanding Surveillance Powers Right Before He Leaves Office?
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> But while the changes may subject more Americans to warrantless surveillance, the last-minute timing of the announcement actually might have been designed to cut future privacy losses. Obama has been immensely pro-mass-surveillance through-out his tenure, what could possibly inspire confidence in this drivel? In upcoming news: Trump cuts back on emission caps for automakers so the next president cannot cut them back further!
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoIf that's not doublespeak I don't know what is?
- cryptoz 10y agoObama was pushing and voting for mass surveillance long before his presidency, as far back as 2006 when he voted to increase the powers and extend the timeline of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT).
- api 10y agoTo be fair nearly everyone voted for that. Few had the spine to be "soft on terror" in the 2000s.
- cryptoz 10y ago"Everyone was evil, it was the style at the time." No thanks, that attitude sounds poisonous and dismissive of reality, dismissive of our ability to live and govern and grow and learn. I voted for Dennis Kucinich that election, a person who did not vote for USA PATRIOT. Many people stood up for human rights and values and real freedom. It wasn't something that took a spine, it's something that takes common sense and compassion and logic.
- cmrdporcupine 10y agohttps://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 "VT At-Large Rep. Bernard 'Bernie' Sanders Independent Nay"
- api 10y agoI said few, not none. I give Sanders and Paul credit.
- js2 10y agoAlong with almost 60 democrats, 2 republicans, and a few other independents.
- natmaster 10y agoRep. Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul Republican Nay Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich Democratic Nay Nay: 66 Like Sanders is any kind of special snowflake. You don't have to get socialism to get someone against mass surveillance.
- cnnsucks 10y agoYet we're told Obama doesn't do that sort of groupthink, and given as example his opposition to the Iraq war; talking point #1 when campaigning against Hillary.
- api 10y agoI realized we lived in what almost is a one party state after Obama took power and not much changed. Surveillance expansion continued or even accelerated, as did our endless wars. Obamacare is a Republican proposal even... it's based on Mitt Romney's Massachusetts insurance mandate. The only shift was in the culture war issues. The Culture War Show is really just a distraction. Trump won largely by styling himself as an actual alternative. Many people who didn't even like him personally voted for him on the idea that he might be a path out of the conventional corporate statist duopoly. Personally I doubt it. Look at his picks. I predict that there will be a lot of noise but little actual change. His trolling will be a great distraction. We've also seen a new season of the Culture War Show begin, featuring a plot involving the epic battle of Red Pill alt-righers vs the social justice warrior league. There will be much arguing on the Internet. Meanwhile the consolidation of global corporate-state power will continue. Combatants on both sides of the culture war will see an expansion in surveillance and the student loan and mortgage debt indenture system.
- gozur88 10y ago>Personally I doubt it. Look at his picks. I predict that there will be a lot of noise but little actual change. His trolling will be a great distraction. This is true. Trump is almost entirely bereft of political philosophy - he was a Democrat until it made sense to be a Republican. He changes policy positions depending on who's asking the question. Sometimes in the same press conference. A guy like that is not going to make huge changes.
- 10y ago
- MichaelBurge 10y agoTrump's talked about reducing the number of intelligence agencies and in particular removing staff from the CIA. That's different from reducing their power, though.
- ccvannorman 10y agoIf I understand this correctly, a local policeman can now apply for access to anyone's internet and phone call history. So if a policeman is having a bad day when you bump into him on the street, you're an application away from that policeman uncovering every tiny detail of your private life. Murica!
- fisherjeff 10y agoNo, not quite: "It can only be for foreign intelligence, or other enumerated purposes. So it’s not that those agencies will just be able to see whatever they want – it’s that they will be able to request, with particular justifications, access to more raw signals intelligence than they had before."
- gabyar 10y agoYou don't understand correctly. That's not even remotely what the article said.
- opless 10y agoThe UK also.
- jimnotgym 10y agoThe difference in the UK is that just about every government agency you can think of, including the 'Food Standards Agency'(!!), can look into your browsing history without having to apply to anyone. Presumably the Food Standards people have a role in preventing terrorism that is not clear to the rest of us.
- mindcrash 10y agoIf I remembered correctly Obama already expanded surveillance powers after Bush laid down the foundation. Now he expanded it even more. IMO this has nothing to do with Trump taking office, and everything to do with giving the NSA even more power before he (Obama) leaves the White House.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- andrewclunn 10y agoIn other news The Atlantic asks, "Was Obama's mishandling of Syria just a plan to discourage his successor from foreign intervention?"
- coldtea 10y agoBecause all politicians serve the same interests: private interests in the military-industrial complex that has the whole of the US in its pockets and pays for their real salaries and retirement, and government interests in increasing their bureaucratic reach and thus their negotiating power with said complex and their comforts and power. Their beef with Trump is more that he'll do the same things but with no manners and without respect for the 'rules of the game' -- and in that he hasn't kissed enough ass to get to do them so he's a little of a wild-card. Not that he's a crook and they aren't, because they are all crooks. [ADDITION] And for the suckers on the sidelines, whether on the coasts or "flyover country" (what a dismissive, borderline racist, term, as if those rural people are a subspecies), there's the sideshow of the "cultural wars" (as some other commenter rightly calls them) to keep them occupied with a number of inconsequential crusades pro and against. Those play into the eternally true fact that people on the rural areas will be a little (a decade or so) slower to adapt to major cultural changes -- so you can exploit the friction politically forever to gather your faithful, dems or reps against the other side. (Of course those "progressive" city people only take up those issues en masse when they are already settled and tired and safe to identify with (e.g. not many fighting for gay rights in the 70s and 80s, but everybody and their dog do it now when most states have already voted them in, or are about to))
- bcuzitsppl8383 10y agoOk
- whelp 10y agoYour democracy works so well.
- gedy 10y agoYour comment reminds me of being in school in the eighties, and seeing the group think bullies gossiping and shunning a lesbian couple. Daring to say "leave them alone" was met with "OMG you are a queer too", etc. Fast forward to today, and the group think bullies will rail "OMG you are a hater too" if you suggest you leave religious people alone who have moral objections to gay marriage (or at least promoting it as identical to heterosexual marriage). Bullies are always the same type of people, no matter the beliefs.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y agobecause it's easier than declaring himself king, yet just as effective? you're all idiots.
- Zhenya 10y agoIs there an Olympics for mental gymnastics? This author should represent the USA.
- ap22213 10y agoYou guys realize that just because you get to walk down to the Blue Bottle with your 8-of-10 girlfriend and her Kate Spade purse to buy $4 scones, 98% or more of the world's surface is far from that. I mean, of course you know that. And, you also know that Obama is an intelligent, and good guy. And, you also know that he had the best intentions before coming into office. So, wouldn't you think that maybe he has had to be pragmatic about his decisions? Occam's razor, right? The world isn't black and white, and when one is responsible for hundreds of millions of lives, a person may need to take the most pragmatic approaches that are available. You really want to change this (instead of just complaining on internet forums)? Figure out a way to address the root problem. And, if you can't do that, invent new approaches that a president can use that are better than what's available currently.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoWhat he needed to be was, a leader. To inspire us to be our better selves, by taking some risks to support our ideals. Like not becoming a police surveillance state, and guaranteeing a trial. Pragmatic is the name you give to what you end up doing because you haven't the courage of your convictions.
- ap22213 10y agoThat's just the type of political BS excuse that's propagated by people who'd rather play WoW and binge watch mindless Netflix shows than help save their failing state. Downvote me all you want. Truth hurts. And, if you happen to pop a little tent from pressing an internet button, I'm glad that I could help you realize that you've been conditioned like an animal.
- nickpeterson 10y agoHe didn't close Guantanamo, kept authorizing drone strikes, expanded government surveillance, failed to prevent/aid/resolve Syria, didn't pardon whistleblowers who exposed agencies infringing constitutional rights. He believes that the government should be able to play by its own rules.
- themgt 10y agoWhat absolute bullshit, with the Atlantic just credulously slurping up the spin of a former NSA attorney. 12333 is an executive order! By its very nature Trump can rescind or update it on a whim the moment he's in office. How can you completely uncritically present readers the argument this is a way to set the rules in stone when they're written on the White House Etch-a-Sketch? And we of course get the "because 9/11" answer: The origin of these changes dates back, honestly, to just after 9/11. Now more than fifteen fucking years later, days before the guy these Dems all said was an unacceptable fascist threat walks into power, and because 9/11 we had to put the Obama stamp of approval on the "bcc: everyone" model of NSA dragnet surveillance sharing. Gotcha! [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3283349-Raw-12333-surveillance-sharing-guidelines.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3283349-Raw-12333-su...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- afterburner 10y agoCould it be to allow deeper investigation into Trump's Russia connections?
- Zhenya 10y agoUsing govt powers to investigate political opponents. Nothing wrong with that. /S
- afterburner 10y agoUsing government powers to protect the government from foreign subversion, more like. Seems like the intelligence community's exact mission, whatever you may think of the methods.
- rokosbasilisk 10y agoYea. I cant wait until Trump uses that reasoning to have Bernie or Warren investigated in 4 years. Either way Obama set many terrible precedents that will be used.
- afterburner 10y agoIt was an executive order. Trump could have done the exact same thing in five days. Not a great precedent, sure, but don't think Trump is afraid to break new ground. It's likely though that Trump would like to quash any investigation into his foreign connections. It's an ugly time all round.
- Zhenya 10y agoIF that's true, what does the executive branch have do with this? That's the intelligence community's mission, they should just be doing it already.
- afterburner 10y agoAre you asking in the broader sense I guess? In a narrow sense, the executive branch expanded the intelligence agencies' power, presumably to help them achieve their mission. If you're wondering about the timing, if you assume my premise is correct, to investigate Trump's Russia connections, it's to give them elevated power to investigate that before Trump hampers their ability to do so when in power. He's been openly hostile towards them when they've brought up the connections. In the broader sense? It's a debate about how much the executive branch should expand surveillance powers, and I'm probably on the same side as you in that respect (privacy is at risk, persecution is a risk if we increase surveillance too much).