9 ms·

Obama’s Remarks on NSA Controversy

140 points by dshankar 13y ago

monsterix 13y ago
Thank you for posting this dshankar. Is this an impromptu speech? Why is he mumbling so much?
- cleverjake 13y ago
  It isn't a speech - its a reply to a question.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    Well, I would call it a prepared response to an inevitable question, at an unrelated event that was already scheduled.
tmzt 13y ago
I'm trying to understand one thing: what is the difference between a telephone number and a name? This is Penn register information, that is what it's referred to as in public laws. In aggregate it can be used to draw connections between people, such as people talking to those who are committed to doing us harm. That is what public comments on these programs have said and that is true. But clearly telephone numbers are identifying information, unless they are hashing them prior to building their graphs, but if that is the case why not say that? His speech also conflates "federal courts", with "FISA court", which implies review by the independent judicial branch.
- natrius 13y ago
  He also glosses over the fact that cell tower location is included in this data. Most of the information that they would overhear in the actual call audio can be deduced from the data they're collecting. Which is kind of the whole point of the program.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    So if I call you from outside 123 Main Street, Anytown on Tuesday at 6:37pm, what are we talking about? Even if one of us is known criminal or terrorist, the fact that conversation took place is merely suspicious rather than probative.
    - AutoCorrect 13y ago
      keep drinking the kool-aid. seriously, every response up to this has been you defending the ongoing actions of the government. are you a government employee?
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Far from it; in fact, as a non-citizen I have far fewer rights than you do, assuming you're a US citizen. Now try addressing my argument instead of attacking me personally, and try to distinguish between defending the actions of the government and pointing out factual context, such as the fact that it is not in fact illegal or unconstitional for the government to collect records of phone calls, even though it perhaps should be. As it happens, I'm from Europe, and one thing I do miss about the EU is that citizens of that territory enjoy a explicit and robust constitutional right to privacy that does not exist in the US, not to mention a unilateral right of access to and control over their personal data in both governmental and commercial spheres. I have called on many occasions for an amendment to the US Constitution that would confer such rights on Americans instead of relying on the vague and implicit 'discovery' of a privacy right that did not exist before 1965 and which could be taken away as easily as it was given.
      - kevincrane 13y ago
        He's just not jumping to conclusions right away. He asks a valid question and your answer didn't contribute in any way.
    - natrius 13y ago
      If a Tea Party leader gets a call from a Koch lobbyist, that information could easily be used to discredit them. Lots of the past abuses of government power would have been just as effective with merely the data the government is collecting about us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
jpdoctor 13y ago
> And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here. Oh thank god, all branches are providing oversight. So it's just as harmless as all those other programs being overseen by all branches of government. Like TSA.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Funny how that works. Apparently we can't trust the executive branch, Congress, or federal judges to make sure they're abiding by the Constitution, and we do have some problems here.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- boot 13y ago
  I love how he says several times "we aren't listening to your phone calls". As if that suddenly makes everything better. Fuck me.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Or as if that makes it true. Wasn't there reports that warrantless wiretapping is widespread? They may not be listening to everybody's "phone calls", but how about activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, etc phone calls? How about people active in grassroots campaigns, from OWS to ecology, etc? How about people that work at EFF? What about journalists that are preparing a government corruption story, etc? Heck, they had files one mile long for people like ...John Lennon and MLK, back in the sixties/seventies.
  - sinnerswing 13y ago
    Or he's just going to plead ignorance and maintain plausible deniability.
cm2012 13y ago
That was remarkably well spoken and reasonable.
- droopybuns 13y ago
  In the words of Jamie Kilstein: "Honestly democrats, does Obama have to fuck your girlfriend for you to get mad?"
betterunix 13y ago
Standard government nonsense -- "There is oversight, this is for your safety, trust us, we respect your privacy, whoa look at the time I have to meet someone important bye!"
coldtea 13y ago
>And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here. The people shouldn't have to "trust" anything and surely not blindly. As is the case here. The people should KNOW about everything that is being done, and judge for themselves. If the people have to ..."trust" their government ("Don't worry, we know what's best and we'll do it, we wont bother you with details, just trust us"), then we already have a huge problem here. The government should represent the will of the people, transparently, openly, and under constant oversight of the citizenry -- not just of judges and congress. Trust should only come into play in very small doses into this.
- pkulak 13y ago
  It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment. I think it's a good point that hundreds of directly elected people, representing the entire country, have known about this since it's inception. You can't just put every single government action to a vote, for several reasons.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment. Really? As if skilled terrorists chat their plans over the phone like casual people. They might get some young idiots, but nobody else. And those things are black swan events. Furthermore, if every single government action was "disclosed to the public", there wouldn't even be more terrorists. People that get to be domestic terrorists would have less reasons to mistrust that open government. And the country wouldn't be made to invade, mess with other sovereign countries and get their people to seek revenge -- at least not without consensus.
  - kawera 13y ago
lukejduncan 13y ago
Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls. It reminds me of little kids fighting, getting in each others face and shouting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls Because there's a huge material difference, maybe?
  - esrauch 13y ago
    Who I am calling is the vast majority of what I want to be private, what I say to them is often obvious given who I am speaking to.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      For a lot of calls, sure. You can guess that calls between me and my mechanic are probably about my car. Calls between me and my wife when I'm out of town? You could guess what we're talking about, but I don't want you to listen in.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Yet the fact that you do or do not call your wife when you're out of town speaks volumes about the strength and nature of your relationship, information which could be used against you if in the wrong hands.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    There is a "huge material difference" between touching your sibling and merely hovering your finger a millimeter over them.
  - lukejduncan 13y ago
kawera 13y ago
Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. As for those living outside the US...
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I thought these programs were essentially constitutional when President Bush was in office, and I think they're essentially constitutional now (perhaps moreso with the added oversight of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008). But it's funny how much more interested President Obama is in making the distinction between purely domestic and foreign intercepts now that it's "his" program. I hope the brouhaha of the last few days has taught him some humility if nothing else.
- ImprovedSilence 13y ago
  >> As for those living outside the US... You should assume the US is recording all your calls. As well as China, England, Russia, Iran, France, and anyone else. The cyber world is spy v. spy. Large govt entities are collecting data on whoever/whatever they can. They are. Doesn't matter how benevolent you think they might be (or, even are). The big deal in the US is that it is spying on it's own citizens, which is a big big no no as far as the constitution and the mandate of the NSA are concerned.
don_draper 13y ago
How would you identify and disrupt terrorist cells in America that were talking with known terrorists overseas? I'm not trying to defend the government, but genuinely ask, 'How would you do it?'
- smackfu 13y ago
  If you start by thinking you need to stop crimes before they happen, it opens the way up for much broader abuses. When the government does want to be preventative, usually they just set up a fake terrorist who tries to recruit people into their fake plan, and then arrest those people when they agree. Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist, but it gets results!
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    That's a pretty inaccurate mischaracterization of how those operations work. Typically the FBI doesn't arrest someone until they have planted or attempted to detonate the fake bomb. Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist Not often. If you read the transcripts of the recordings made in such cases (which are often attached to the indictment as evidence, or sometimes available in audio form), the sad fact is that some people run towards the honeypot at full speed. It's entrapment to encourage a reluctant or uncommitted person, but there are quite a few people who are eager to engage in such behavior.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  There comes a point where you just admit that you can't. Bad people do bad things and sometimes you can't stop them. Burning the whole village to save it, cure worse than the disease, cutting noses to spite faces, and all that.
  - don_draper 13y ago
    In the age of nuclear weapons doing nothing is not acceptable.
hu_me 13y ago
It also mentions that the spying doesn't involve reading emails of US residents? So that means people outside US jurisdiction are being targeted?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    You're confusing things. Both the NSA and the CIA can constitutionally intercept communications that cross U.S. borders. It's debatable how much oversight Congress can impose on those intercepts without encroaching on executive authority, but the basic principle of cross-border monitoring has been accepted for decades.
    - encoderer 13y ago
      I deleted my post before I saw your reply. It just said "The CIA doesn't spy on American Citizens, that's what the NSA is for." My point being, why on earth would anybody be surprised that the CIA is spying on foreigners. That's the whole point of the CIA. I deleted my original comment because this is a bottom of the page thread that I think takes away from the larger debate. But since there's a reply now, I'll add it back in.
dlitz 13y ago
If voters in the US are just supposed to "trust" Congress and the executive, why even bother having elections?
- encoderer 13y ago
  Seriously? To elect somebody you trust. This is a republic.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Personally I reserve trust for people, but for governments (and other organizations) I have standards and expectations.
  - dlitz 13y ago
    OK, so you've elected representatives that you trust. Now what? A major purpose of having new elections every 4 years (as opposed to life tenure) is to allow the people to periodically re-evaluate their trust decisions. What do you propose as the basis for that trust? Blind faith? What's being suggested here is that elected representatives ought to be trusted by the public without access to the information necessary to verify that their trust has not been misplaced. It's not like we're talking about specific information that was leaked. The mere fact that there exists such a broad surveillance program---authorized by Congress, the White House, and the FISC---was classified "top secret" and not scheduled to be declassified until decades later. The legally-enforced lack of accountability to the people for such a massive program undermines the legitimacy of a government that supposedly governs by the consent of the people.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
We already have an established process with established safeguards designed to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and personal liberty. This isn't it. This is so far from it as to make a mockery of the principles that lay at the very foundations of our nation.
tommis 13y ago
>Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. For EU and rest of the world: Every message (email/IM,anything..) trough gmail, hotmail, AOL or facebook is stored by US Gov. and used as they see fit.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Your comment may be tongue in cheek however the concept of universal jurisdiction is a serious one that many have contemplated over the past century or so. Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people? Is it because their data simply transits through the US (eg: to Facebook's servers)? Or is it because you expect the US Government to use that data to impose its laws and regulations selectively at its convenience (combating piracy)?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people? Because its a limitation on the power of the federal government that has no restrictions as to nationality of targets written in to it.
natrius 13y ago
Let's talk a little about trusting the government to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the treaties we enter into as the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions are treaties that make torture illegal. The government has tortured people pretty recently. We're pretty far beyond "trust, but verify" territory here.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I question your minor premise, just for starters. I also think you're committing a fallacy of composition, since the government is not a monolithic entity.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Oh, this retort again. "HN/Reddit/the Government isn't just one person with one opinion you know!" And then someone replies yadda yadda scotsman yadda yadda and then we all kill ourselves. Make an argument!
kjackson2012 13y ago
So we're expected to trust someone that has been lying to us for 5 years?
bguthrie 13y ago
"Do you welcome the leak, sir? Do you welcome the leak if you welcome the debate?"
jervisfm 13y ago
Here is an interesting quote from his remarks that I think could actually be a worthwhile argument that gives some indication that there is serious concern to ensure that the systems are not abused. > And by the way, with respect to my concerns about privacy issues, I will leave this office at some point, sometime in the last — next 3 1/2 years, and after that, I will be a private citizen. And I suspect that, you know, on — on a list of people who might be targeted, you know, so that somebody could read their emails or — or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list. So it’s not as if I don’t have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected.
- dcraw 13y ago
  He will be escorted by the Secret Service, so he's not going to have a lot of privacy from the federal government either way.
- aetimmes 13y ago
  Former President Obama would also have far more power than John Q. Citizen to make his metadata "disappear" if need be. I don't particularly buy this argument.
- A__MJ 13y ago
  I would interpret that as Obama casting himself in the position of an average citizen to garner a feeling of connection and trust. I'm taking a wild guess, but I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office. Isn't that exactly his point? After he leaves office, he will be very high on "List of people to snoop"?
- A__MJ 13y ago
  I would interpret that as Obama casting himself in the position of an average citizen to garner a feeling of connection and trust. I'm taking a wild guess, but I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.
cinquemb 13y ago
don't trust the executive branch?: √ don't trust Congress?: √ don't trust what is called "due process and rule of law"?: √ I wonder what problems he thinks people will cause? Petitions are ignored. Protests are relegated to "Free speech zones". People are taking on more debt than ever to live the "American Dream". Sounds like they have everything in control to me…
- medde 13y ago
  we've got a problem... stop funding the NSA, TSA, etc...
scrabble 13y ago
"...represent only small encroachments of people’s privacy." This is pretty much how it starts. First the people accept small encroachments, then they're asked to accept slightly larger encroachments. Eventually there is no privacy left.
droopybuns 13y ago
"Now, let — let me take the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls." So, this is about CDRs- Call Detail Records. They are the atomic unit of all mobile telecommunications. There's no billing, no provisioning of data or anything without them. These are the most fundamental log files of all your mobile activity. They are in a sense, the primary key needed to enumerate all of your transactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record An excruciating level of detail on what a CDR can include can be found here: http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 Our president is using weasel words. Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. So, from here, we jump to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 "We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. Its not necessarily something that the FBI's going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation or the questioning of her." Our political leaders are not worth defending any more. The whole system is corrupt. Everyone in office needs to be ejected, followed by the comprehensive removal of non-political government leadership. This country has beached itself.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. Hint: it's always been possible to get nearly any piece of information with a subpoena or a warrant. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches not searches period. And a subpoena or a warrant is by definition a reasonable search. There is nothing weasel-y about this language.
droopybuns 13y ago
Now, let — let me take the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls. So, this is about CDRs- Call Detail Records. They are the atomic unit of all mobile telecommunications. There's no billing, no provisioning of data or anything without them. These are the most fundamental log files of all your mobile activity. They are in a sense, the primary key needed to enumerate all of your transactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record An excruciating level of detail on what a CDR can include can be found here: http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 Our president is using weasel words. Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. So, from here, we jump to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 "We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. Its not necessarily something that the FBI's going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation or the questioning of her." Our political leaders are not worth defending any more. The whole system is corrupt. Everyone in office needs to be ejected, followed by the comprehensive removal of non-political government leadership. This country has beached itself.
coley 13y ago
"They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation." So if you're not collecting names, whose name goes on the warrant once suspicious is aroused?
- medde 13y ago
  they are getting the data from different sources to not look too suspicious
qwerta 13y ago
I do not get why people are not using PGP more. It takes 10 minutes to setup your email client and put public certificate on web. It is just question of time until government starts using this data for "other dangerous stuff" such as tax evasion and not paying parking tickets.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  People have not yet accepted the fact that in a digital age, there will always be somebody snooping your information. They still believe with enough laws, it can be stopped.
- waterphone 13y ago
  A lot of people get excited and set it up, then realize there's no one else they know who is willing to use it, rendering it pointless.
mindstab 13y ago
Obama: "And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion."
boi_v2 13y ago
The logical fallacies in his speech are remarkable.
- maeon3 13y ago
  Picking out logical fallacies and blasting people with them, even going so far as to name them, does not contribute to the conversation: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html
platypii 13y ago
My problem with his remarks was that he was addressing the wrong issue. He was defending the need to access this data without a warrant. He then repeatedly stated that he welcomed the discussion. But how can a national discussion take place about a secret program?? He never addressed this issue of why the program needs to be secret in the first place.
benmmurphy 13y ago
Not sure why Obama thinks he would be high on the list of people this program would abuse. Why would the people running the program punish someone that supported the program? The innocent people that have to fear from this program are the people currently opposing the surveillance state. If you are in a position of power either in private industry or the government and are not co-operating with NSLs or other surveillance requests then you are high on the list.
medde 13y ago
obama - bush = 0
suredo 13y ago
with great powers comes great responsibilities.... and I thought he could handle it...
Achshar 13y ago
What the fuck is the "we are not reading emails of any US citizen" bullshit. I am not a US citizen, so you are reading my emails? That is even more fucked up. For one second forget about US citizens and think about all the other people in the world. I don't care what US government does to it's people, it's your government after all. But what I do care is what it does to data of others (including myself), because it has no right to any of that data. So someone get the questions answered.
suredo 13y ago
what is the reason for this being classified? so that people don't stop using Verizon?
rglover 13y ago
http://youtu.be/cGKEkI8IV2o?t=7m43s http://youtu.be/cGKEkI8IV2o?t=7m43s
gcb0 13y ago
<quote>Obama: number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, to uphold the Constitution.</quote> isn't that wrong order or priorities exactly what the constitution should protect us from?
notmarkus 13y ago
It opens with "all of your duly elected officials have been aware of this program for years and have consistently voted to maintain it." Yes, that makes it so much better.
jlarocco 13y ago
It's hard to believe anything the government says about this because a month ago they would have denied anything was being done at all.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

140 points by dshankar 13y ago

monsterix 13y ago

Thank you for posting this dshankar. Is this an impromptu speech? Why is he mumbling so much?

cleverjake 13y ago
It isn't a speech - its a reply to a question.
- smackfu 13y ago
  Well, I would call it a prepared response to an inevitable question, at an unrelated event that was already scheduled.

tmzt 13y ago

I'm trying to understand one thing: what is the difference between a telephone number and a name? This is Penn register information, that is what it's referred to as in public laws. In aggregate it can be used to draw connections between people, such as people talking to those who are committed to doing us harm. That is what public comments on these programs have said and that is true. But clearly telephone numbers are identifying information, unless they are hashing them prior to building their graphs, but if that is the case why not say that? His speech also conflates "federal courts", with "FISA court", which implies review by the independent judicial branch.

natrius 13y ago
He also glosses over the fact that cell tower location is included in this data. Most of the information that they would overhear in the actual call audio can be deduced from the data they're collecting. Which is kind of the whole point of the program.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  So if I call you from outside 123 Main Street, Anytown on Tuesday at 6:37pm, what are we talking about? Even if one of us is known criminal or terrorist, the fact that conversation took place is merely suspicious rather than probative.
  - AutoCorrect 13y ago
    keep drinking the kool-aid. seriously, every response up to this has been you defending the ongoing actions of the government. are you a government employee?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Far from it; in fact, as a non-citizen I have far fewer rights than you do, assuming you're a US citizen. Now try addressing my argument instead of attacking me personally, and try to distinguish between defending the actions of the government and pointing out factual context, such as the fact that it is not in fact illegal or unconstitional for the government to collect records of phone calls, even though it perhaps should be. As it happens, I'm from Europe, and one thing I do miss about the EU is that citizens of that territory enjoy a explicit and robust constitutional right to privacy that does not exist in the US, not to mention a unilateral right of access to and control over their personal data in both governmental and commercial spheres. I have called on many occasions for an amendment to the US Constitution that would confer such rights on Americans instead of relying on the vague and implicit 'discovery' of a privacy right that did not exist before 1965 and which could be taken away as easily as it was given.
    - kevincrane 13y ago
      He's just not jumping to conclusions right away. He asks a valid question and your answer didn't contribute in any way.
  - natrius 13y ago
    If a Tea Party leader gets a call from a Koch lobbyist, that information could easily be used to discredit them. Lots of the past abuses of government power would have been just as effective with merely the data the government is collecting about us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

jpdoctor 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago
Funny how that works. Apparently we can't trust the executive branch, Congress, or federal judges to make sure they're abiding by the Constitution, and we do have some problems here.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
boot 13y ago
I love how he says several times "we aren't listening to your phone calls". As if that suddenly makes everything better. Fuck me.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Or as if that makes it true. Wasn't there reports that warrantless wiretapping is widespread? They may not be listening to everybody's "phone calls", but how about activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, etc phone calls? How about people active in grassroots campaigns, from OWS to ecology, etc? How about people that work at EFF? What about journalists that are preparing a government corruption story, etc? Heck, they had files one mile long for people like ...John Lennon and MLK, back in the sixties/seventies.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  Or he's just going to plead ignorance and maintain plausible deniability.

cm2012 13y ago

That was remarkably well spoken and reasonable.

droopybuns 13y ago
In the words of Jamie Kilstein: "Honestly democrats, does Obama have to fuck your girlfriend for you to get mad?"

betterunix 13y ago

Standard government nonsense -- "There is oversight, this is for your safety, trust us, we respect your privacy, whoa look at the time I have to meet someone important bye!"

coldtea 13y ago

>And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here. The people shouldn't have to "trust" anything and surely not blindly. As is the case here. The people should KNOW about everything that is being done, and judge for themselves. If the people have to ..."trust" their government ("Don't worry, we know what's best and we'll do it, we wont bother you with details, just trust us"), then we already have a huge problem here. The government should represent the will of the people, transparently, openly, and under constant oversight of the citizenry -- not just of judges and congress. Trust should only come into play in very small doses into this.

pkulak 13y ago
It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment. I think it's a good point that hundreds of directly elected people, representing the entire country, have known about this since it's inception. You can't just put every single government action to a vote, for several reasons.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment. Really? As if skilled terrorists chat their plans over the phone like casual people. They might get some young idiots, but nobody else. And those things are black swan events. Furthermore, if every single government action was "disclosed to the public", there wouldn't even be more terrorists. People that get to be domestic terrorists would have less reasons to mistrust that open government. And the country wouldn't be made to invade, mess with other sovereign countries and get their people to seek revenge -- at least not without consensus.
- kawera 13y ago

lukejduncan 13y ago

Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls. It reminds me of little kids fighting, getting in each others face and shouting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"

MartinCron 13y ago
Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls Because there's a huge material difference, maybe?
- esrauch 13y ago
  Who I am calling is the vast majority of what I want to be private, what I say to them is often obvious given who I am speaking to.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    For a lot of calls, sure. You can guess that calls between me and my mechanic are probably about my car. Calls between me and my wife when I'm out of town? You could guess what we're talking about, but I don't want you to listen in.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Yet the fact that you do or do not call your wife when you're out of town speaks volumes about the strength and nature of your relationship, information which could be used against you if in the wrong hands.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  There is a "huge material difference" between touching your sibling and merely hovering your finger a millimeter over them.
- lukejduncan 13y ago

kawera 13y ago

Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. As for those living outside the US...

twoodfin 13y ago
I thought these programs were essentially constitutional when President Bush was in office, and I think they're essentially constitutional now (perhaps moreso with the added oversight of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008). But it's funny how much more interested President Obama is in making the distinction between purely domestic and foreign intercepts now that it's "his" program. I hope the brouhaha of the last few days has taught him some humility if nothing else.
ImprovedSilence 13y ago
>> As for those living outside the US... You should assume the US is recording all your calls. As well as China, England, Russia, Iran, France, and anyone else. The cyber world is spy v. spy. Large govt entities are collecting data on whoever/whatever they can. They are. Doesn't matter how benevolent you think they might be (or, even are). The big deal in the US is that it is spying on it's own citizens, which is a big big no no as far as the constitution and the mandate of the NSA are concerned.

don_draper 13y ago

How would you identify and disrupt terrorist cells in America that were talking with known terrorists overseas? I'm not trying to defend the government, but genuinely ask, 'How would you do it?'

smackfu 13y ago
If you start by thinking you need to stop crimes before they happen, it opens the way up for much broader abuses. When the government does want to be preventative, usually they just set up a fake terrorist who tries to recruit people into their fake plan, and then arrest those people when they agree. Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist, but it gets results!
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That's a pretty inaccurate mischaracterization of how those operations work. Typically the FBI doesn't arrest someone until they have planted or attempted to detonate the fake bomb. Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist Not often. If you read the transcripts of the recordings made in such cases (which are often attached to the indictment as evidence, or sometimes available in audio form), the sad fact is that some people run towards the honeypot at full speed. It's entrapment to encourage a reluctant or uncommitted person, but there are quite a few people who are eager to engage in such behavior.
noonespecial 13y ago
There comes a point where you just admit that you can't. Bad people do bad things and sometimes you can't stop them. Burning the whole village to save it, cure worse than the disease, cutting noses to spite faces, and all that.
- don_draper 13y ago
  In the age of nuclear weapons doing nothing is not acceptable.

hu_me 13y ago

It also mentions that the spying doesn't involve reading emails of US residents? So that means people outside US jurisdiction are being targeted?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- twoodfin 13y ago
  You're confusing things. Both the NSA and the CIA can constitutionally intercept communications that cross U.S. borders. It's debatable how much oversight Congress can impose on those intercepts without encroaching on executive authority, but the basic principle of cross-border monitoring has been accepted for decades.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    I deleted my post before I saw your reply. It just said "The CIA doesn't spy on American Citizens, that's what the NSA is for." My point being, why on earth would anybody be surprised that the CIA is spying on foreigners. That's the whole point of the CIA. I deleted my original comment because this is a bottom of the page thread that I think takes away from the larger debate. But since there's a reply now, I'll add it back in.

dlitz 13y ago

If voters in the US are just supposed to "trust" Congress and the executive, why even bother having elections?

encoderer 13y ago
Seriously? To elect somebody you trust. This is a republic.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Personally I reserve trust for people, but for governments (and other organizations) I have standards and expectations.
- dlitz 13y ago
  OK, so you've elected representatives that you trust. Now what? A major purpose of having new elections every 4 years (as opposed to life tenure) is to allow the people to periodically re-evaluate their trust decisions. What do you propose as the basis for that trust? Blind faith? What's being suggested here is that elected representatives ought to be trusted by the public without access to the information necessary to verify that their trust has not been misplaced. It's not like we're talking about specific information that was leaked. The mere fact that there exists such a broad surveillance program---authorized by Congress, the White House, and the FISC---was classified "top secret" and not scheduled to be declassified until decades later. The legally-enforced lack of accountability to the people for such a massive program undermines the legitimacy of a government that supposedly governs by the consent of the people.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

We already have an established process with established safeguards designed to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and personal liberty. This isn't it. This is so far from it as to make a mockery of the principles that lay at the very foundations of our nation.

tommis 13y ago

>Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. For EU and rest of the world: Every message (email/IM,anything..) trough gmail, hotmail, AOL or facebook is stored by US Gov. and used as they see fit.

ihsw 13y ago
Your comment may be tongue in cheek however the concept of universal jurisdiction is a serious one that many have contemplated over the past century or so. Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people? Is it because their data simply transits through the US (eg: to Facebook's servers)? Or is it because you expect the US Government to use that data to impose its laws and regulations selectively at its convenience (combating piracy)?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people? Because its a limitation on the power of the federal government that has no restrictions as to nationality of targets written in to it.

natrius 13y ago

Let's talk a little about trusting the government to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the treaties we enter into as the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions are treaties that make torture illegal. The government has tortured people pretty recently. We're pretty far beyond "trust, but verify" territory here.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I question your minor premise, just for starters. I also think you're committing a fallacy of composition, since the government is not a monolithic entity.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Oh, this retort again. "HN/Reddit/the Government isn't just one person with one opinion you know!" And then someone replies yadda yadda scotsman yadda yadda and then we all kill ourselves. Make an argument!

kjackson2012 13y ago

So we're expected to trust someone that has been lying to us for 5 years?

bguthrie 13y ago

"Do you welcome the leak, sir? Do you welcome the leak if you welcome the debate?"

jervisfm 13y ago

Here is an interesting quote from his remarks that I think could actually be a worthwhile argument that gives some indication that there is serious concern to ensure that the systems are not abused. > And by the way, with respect to my concerns about privacy issues, I will leave this office at some point, sometime in the last — next 3 1/2 years, and after that, I will be a private citizen. And I suspect that, you know, on — on a list of people who might be targeted, you know, so that somebody could read their emails or — or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list. So it’s not as if I don’t have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected.

dcraw 13y ago
He will be escorted by the Secret Service, so he's not going to have a lot of privacy from the federal government either way.
aetimmes 13y ago
Former President Obama would also have far more power than John Q. Citizen to make his metadata "disappear" if need be. I don't particularly buy this argument.
A__MJ 13y ago
I would interpret that as Obama casting himself in the position of an average citizen to garner a feeling of connection and trust. I'm taking a wild guess, but I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office. Isn't that exactly his point? After he leaves office, he will be very high on "List of people to snoop"?
A__MJ 13y ago
I would interpret that as Obama casting himself in the position of an average citizen to garner a feeling of connection and trust. I'm taking a wild guess, but I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.

cinquemb 13y ago

don't trust the executive branch?: √ don't trust Congress?: √ don't trust what is called "due process and rule of law"?: √ I wonder what problems he thinks people will cause? Petitions are ignored. Protests are relegated to "Free speech zones". People are taking on more debt than ever to live the "American Dream". Sounds like they have everything in control to me…

medde 13y ago
we've got a problem... stop funding the NSA, TSA, etc...

scrabble 13y ago

"...represent only small encroachments of people’s privacy." This is pretty much how it starts. First the people accept small encroachments, then they're asked to accept slightly larger encroachments. Eventually there is no privacy left.

droopybuns 13y ago

"Now, let — let me take the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls." So, this is about CDRs- Call Detail Records. They are the atomic unit of all mobile telecommunications. There's no billing, no provisioning of data or anything without them. These are the most fundamental log files of all your mobile activity. They are in a sense, the primary key needed to enumerate all of your transactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record An excruciating level of detail on what a CDR can include can be found here: http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 Our president is using weasel words. Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. So, from here, we jump to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 "We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. Its not necessarily something that the FBI's going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation or the questioning of her." Our political leaders are not worth defending any more. The whole system is corrupt. Everyone in office needs to be ejected, followed by the comprehensive removal of non-political government leadership. This country has beached itself.

rayiner 13y ago
> Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. Hint: it's always been possible to get nearly any piece of information with a subpoena or a warrant. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches not searches period. And a subpoena or a warrant is by definition a reasonable search. There is nothing weasel-y about this language.

droopybuns 13y ago

Now, let — let me take the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls. So, this is about CDRs- Call Detail Records. They are the atomic unit of all mobile telecommunications. There's no billing, no provisioning of data or anything without them. These are the most fundamental log files of all your mobile activity. They are in a sense, the primary key needed to enumerate all of your transactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record An excruciating level of detail on what a CDR can include can be found here: http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784 Our president is using weasel words. Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. So, from here, we jump to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00 "We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. Its not necessarily something that the FBI's going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation or the questioning of her." Our political leaders are not worth defending any more. The whole system is corrupt. Everyone in office needs to be ejected, followed by the comprehensive removal of non-political government leadership. This country has beached itself.

coley 13y ago

"They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation." So if you're not collecting names, whose name goes on the warrant once suspicious is aroused?

medde 13y ago
they are getting the data from different sources to not look too suspicious

qwerta 13y ago

I do not get why people are not using PGP more. It takes 10 minutes to setup your email client and put public certificate on web. It is just question of time until government starts using this data for "other dangerous stuff" such as tax evasion and not paying parking tickets.

sliverstorm 13y ago
People have not yet accepted the fact that in a digital age, there will always be somebody snooping your information. They still believe with enough laws, it can be stopped.
waterphone 13y ago
A lot of people get excited and set it up, then realize there's no one else they know who is willing to use it, rendering it pointless.

mindstab 13y ago

Obama: "And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion."

boi_v2 13y ago

The logical fallacies in his speech are remarkable.

maeon3 13y ago
Picking out logical fallacies and blasting people with them, even going so far as to name them, does not contribute to the conversation: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html

platypii 13y ago

My problem with his remarks was that he was addressing the wrong issue. He was defending the need to access this data without a warrant. He then repeatedly stated that he welcomed the discussion. But how can a national discussion take place about a secret program?? He never addressed this issue of why the program needs to be secret in the first place.

benmmurphy 13y ago

Not sure why Obama thinks he would be high on the list of people this program would abuse. Why would the people running the program punish someone that supported the program? The innocent people that have to fear from this program are the people currently opposing the surveillance state. If you are in a position of power either in private industry or the government and are not co-operating with NSLs or other surveillance requests then you are high on the list.

medde 13y ago

obama - bush = 0

suredo 13y ago

with great powers comes great responsibilities.... and I thought he could handle it...

Achshar 13y ago

What the fuck is the "we are not reading emails of any US citizen" bullshit. I am not a US citizen, so you are reading my emails? That is even more fucked up. For one second forget about US citizens and think about all the other people in the world. I don't care what US government does to it's people, it's your government after all. But what I do care is what it does to data of others (including myself), because it has no right to any of that data. So someone get the questions answered.

suredo 13y ago

what is the reason for this being classified? so that people don't stop using Verizon?

rglover 13y ago

http://youtu.be/cGKEkI8IV2o?t=7m43s http://youtu.be/cGKEkI8IV2o?t=7m43s

gcb0 13y ago

<quote>Obama: number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, to uphold the Constitution.</quote> isn't that wrong order or priorities exactly what the constitution should protect us from?

notmarkus 13y ago

It opens with "all of your duly elected officials have been aware of this program for years and have consistently voted to maintain it." Yes, that makes it so much better.

jlarocco 13y ago

It's hard to believe anything the government says about this because a month ago they would have denied anything was being done at all.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]