4 ms·

You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's just so much hesitation in his words. In 2007, he believed in what he said - that

You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's just so much hesitation in his words. In 2007, he believed in what he said - that security is not an excuse to violate the civil liberties of the people. There was so much conviction in his words. That conviction just isn't there anymore. I'd follow 2007 Obama anywhere, but 2013 Obama is severely lacking.

icambron 13y ago
2007 Obama lead us precisely here.
gojomo 13y ago
Too bad 2013 Obama sent 2007 Obama to some secret prison somewhere. (A Guantanamo of the mind?)
- pyre 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate
  - gojomo 13y ago
    True story: after writing this 2002 blogpost -- http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 -- a researcher preparing material for the 2004 remake of 'Manchurian Candidate' contacted me by email looking for more background material.
fossuser 13y ago
The problem is that both candidate Obama, you and I are arguing from a point of massive ignorance. From what's been leaked I find the idea that all digital communication is monitored on everyone and everything disturbing. As Snowden mentioned in his interview this is a powerful thing for a government to have and can become dangerous. It's something the public should be involved in deciding where and if that line is drawn. It's a catch-22. The information necessary to fully appreciate what's going on is classified and the only way to understand the argument completely is to get a high level clearance which then prevents you from making any arguments about it. Daniel Ellsberg wrote something really interesting about the effects this can have on the cleared vs. uncleared: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber... From what's available I can't imagine a situation where the cost of this type of massive internet surveillance outweighs whatever benefit. While I can appreciate the necessity of secrets - I wish we could know the truth.
- tibbon 13y ago
  One thing I've always appreciated in concept about American law is the idea that sometimes- we just say that the law enforcement can't do something because we (should) hold ourselves to a higher standard. Found out about something during an illegal search? Inadmissible. Think someone's selling drugs but don't have anything more than a hunch? Well, just can't do anything about that and you've gotta wait for a reason to search them. Yet, we're at a point that the boogey-man of 'terrorism' has made us throw that away for the concept of safety. Yes, I'm absolutely certain that if you're in the position to protect people and enforce the laws that its rather nice to be able to do anything to make that happen- but we've just got to accept some level of risk (and hazard) in exchange for them not violating everything just to create that risk-free perception.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  That's a great link and interesting story. For complex scenarios I can see where they're might be many things people don't know about that changes their position. In the case of such a broad surveillance system, I'm having trouble coming up with good secret reasons. Perhaps I'm being unimaginative. If, for example, this system was preventing hundreds of terrorists, what damage would be done by stating that it has unequivocally stopped major threats? What's the damage in revealing what's going on and why? Is the plan "if we're quiet enough, bad guys won't bother using encryption or cover their tracks? I'm curious to know, what information, in theory, would change someone's opinion, and must remain secret in order to keep things safe. Aside from breaks on popular ciphers or mass collusion with major hardware/software vendors. Edit: I'd trust a president stating for sure that this is entirely necessary, and stating there is secret information that'd even change the EFF's opinion. Obama's speech doesn't give that perception at all. It feels like he's stumbling around to justify something he knows is bad, using nebulous threats.
  - fossuser 13y ago
    I think it's a complex issue and it's hard to know anything without having the full context. I think Obama is somewhat conflicted over the balance and is unable to reveal the interesting parts of that question. Assuming an environment where all digital information is monitored and it actually is used in a reasonable way (active, investigations, internal warrants from courts, etc.) I could see there being an argument that keeping the extent of it secret prevents people from knowing what's being monitored and avoiding those methods of communications. I don't agree with this argument primarily because things change in leadership and governments and having a system like this (especially with it being secret) can lead to abuse. This was Snowden's point about changes in policy and 'turn key tyranny'. Clearly access to this information changed Obama's opinions pretty severely - there must be a lot we don't know.
joe_the_user 13y ago
What? The thing about Obama 2007 was that he was, in fact, giving Obama 2013 all tools he needed. Candidate Obama promised law enforcement "all the tools they need" as much as he promised an end to all the wiretapping. President Obama is, in fact, right that there are choices between the powers of the police and the rights of the citizens. If candidate Obama had ponied up and said sometimes you do have let one guilty man escape, let one cop feel like their "hands are tied" to protect the liberties of Americans, then he'd have an argument. If candidate Obama had said "yes, there are tradeoffs but the seesaw had clearly moved in a dysfunctional and unbalanced direction that we have to correct", then you could honestly say he's shifted now. The candidate Obama I saw, was promising anything and everything and thus it's not the least bit surprising he is now just doing what's convenient. Course, the candidate Obama had a great ability to say things in a way that made people think he's saying what you want. Just consider the beauty of candidate Obama's, uh, "languaging", President Obama still opposes illegal wiretaps, right? What President Obama is defending here is legal wiretaps, of course.
- mkolodny 13y ago
  2007 Obama's key point was that he would "provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists _without undermining our constitution, and our freedom._" He believed that security was not just cause for violating our constitutional liberties. In 2013, apparently that's no longer the case.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    My point is that this statement promises everything for everyone. Which means that it does not say what the result will be when a tug of war between goals happens.
bmistree 13y ago
I don't really get the argument that President Obama and Candidate Obama were somehow different people. In 2008, Candidate Obama first promised that he would not vote for retroactive immunity for telecom companies that had opened their networks to the NSA. And then, a matter of weeks later, he did so anyways [1,2]. This vote was inextricably linked to the issues we're discussing today. In 2008, companies were on the verge actual accountability: they would have had to pay millions and billions of dollars in fines to their customers (or at least their customers' lawyers). If that had happened, it's easy to imagine those companies' modern incarnations being more adversarial with regards to new surveillance laws, court orders, and appropriate process. It was clear then that Candidate Obama would easily cave on core issues for political expedience, just as it is now. I'm not saying that there were better alternative candidates. I'm just saying that if you'd really have followed "2007 Obama anywhere." you either weren't paying attention or willfully deceived yourself. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html [2] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
reeses 13y ago
Every time a 'new' president does something that seems completely illegal on a national security matter, I have this little film reel (er, h.264? Youtube video?) that plays in my head. It generally begins in the Movie-Standard high-level, windowless, government briefing room. President and the national security advisors are there. The advisors spill whatever beans are appropriate to the situation. President pulls a Home Alone face and poops his pants. Obviously, it doesn't let the GHWBs, or any president, off the hook. I imagine it to be a test of the sort of moral character we should focus on when evaluating candidates, rather than whether they inhaled or let a skanky woman sit on their lap while boating. Maybe candidates should get a briefing six months before the election and then we can make sure we elect a total bastard from the start.

icambron 13y ago

2007 Obama lead us precisely here.

gojomo 13y ago

Too bad 2013 Obama sent 2007 Obama to some secret prison somewhere. (A Guantanamo of the mind?)

pyre 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_candidate
- gojomo 13y ago
  True story: after writing this 2002 blogpost -- http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 http://www.openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2448 -- a researcher preparing material for the 2004 remake of 'Manchurian Candidate' contacted me by email looking for more background material.

fossuser 13y ago

The problem is that both candidate Obama, you and I are arguing from a point of massive ignorance. From what's been leaked I find the idea that all digital communication is monitored on everyone and everything disturbing. As Snowden mentioned in his interview this is a powerful thing for a government to have and can become dangerous. It's something the public should be involved in deciding where and if that line is drawn. It's a catch-22. The information necessary to fully appreciate what's going on is classified and the only way to understand the argument completely is to get a high level clearance which then prevents you from making any arguments about it. Daniel Ellsberg wrote something really interesting about the effects this can have on the cleared vs. uncleared: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber... From what's available I can't imagine a situation where the cost of this type of massive internet surveillance outweighs whatever benefit. While I can appreciate the necessity of secrets - I wish we could know the truth.

tibbon 13y ago
One thing I've always appreciated in concept about American law is the idea that sometimes- we just say that the law enforcement can't do something because we (should) hold ourselves to a higher standard. Found out about something during an illegal search? Inadmissible. Think someone's selling drugs but don't have anything more than a hunch? Well, just can't do anything about that and you've gotta wait for a reason to search them. Yet, we're at a point that the boogey-man of 'terrorism' has made us throw that away for the concept of safety. Yes, I'm absolutely certain that if you're in the position to protect people and enforce the laws that its rather nice to be able to do anything to make that happen- but we've just got to accept some level of risk (and hazard) in exchange for them not violating everything just to create that risk-free perception.
MichaelGG 13y ago
That's a great link and interesting story. For complex scenarios I can see where they're might be many things people don't know about that changes their position. In the case of such a broad surveillance system, I'm having trouble coming up with good secret reasons. Perhaps I'm being unimaginative. If, for example, this system was preventing hundreds of terrorists, what damage would be done by stating that it has unequivocally stopped major threats? What's the damage in revealing what's going on and why? Is the plan "if we're quiet enough, bad guys won't bother using encryption or cover their tracks? I'm curious to know, what information, in theory, would change someone's opinion, and must remain secret in order to keep things safe. Aside from breaks on popular ciphers or mass collusion with major hardware/software vendors. Edit: I'd trust a president stating for sure that this is entirely necessary, and stating there is secret information that'd even change the EFF's opinion. Obama's speech doesn't give that perception at all. It feels like he's stumbling around to justify something he knows is bad, using nebulous threats.
- fossuser 13y ago
  I think it's a complex issue and it's hard to know anything without having the full context. I think Obama is somewhat conflicted over the balance and is unable to reveal the interesting parts of that question. Assuming an environment where all digital information is monitored and it actually is used in a reasonable way (active, investigations, internal warrants from courts, etc.) I could see there being an argument that keeping the extent of it secret prevents people from knowing what's being monitored and avoiding those methods of communications. I don't agree with this argument primarily because things change in leadership and governments and having a system like this (especially with it being secret) can lead to abuse. This was Snowden's point about changes in policy and 'turn key tyranny'. Clearly access to this information changed Obama's opinions pretty severely - there must be a lot we don't know.

joe_the_user 13y ago

What? The thing about Obama 2007 was that he was, in fact, giving Obama 2013 all tools he needed. Candidate Obama promised law enforcement "all the tools they need" as much as he promised an end to all the wiretapping. President Obama is, in fact, right that there are choices between the powers of the police and the rights of the citizens. If candidate Obama had ponied up and said sometimes you do have let one guilty man escape, let one cop feel like their "hands are tied" to protect the liberties of Americans, then he'd have an argument. If candidate Obama had said "yes, there are tradeoffs but the seesaw had clearly moved in a dysfunctional and unbalanced direction that we have to correct", then you could honestly say he's shifted now. The candidate Obama I saw, was promising anything and everything and thus it's not the least bit surprising he is now just doing what's convenient. Course, the candidate Obama had a great ability to say things in a way that made people think he's saying what you want. Just consider the beauty of candidate Obama's, uh, "languaging", President Obama still opposes illegal wiretaps, right? What President Obama is defending here is legal wiretaps, of course.

mkolodny 13y ago
2007 Obama's key point was that he would "provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists _without undermining our constitution, and our freedom._" He believed that security was not just cause for violating our constitutional liberties. In 2013, apparently that's no longer the case.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  My point is that this statement promises everything for everyone. Which means that it does not say what the result will be when a tug of war between goals happens.

bmistree 13y ago

I don't really get the argument that President Obama and Candidate Obama were somehow different people. In 2008, Candidate Obama first promised that he would not vote for retroactive immunity for telecom companies that had opened their networks to the NSA. And then, a matter of weeks later, he did so anyways [1,2]. This vote was inextricably linked to the issues we're discussing today. In 2008, companies were on the verge actual accountability: they would have had to pay millions and billions of dollars in fines to their customers (or at least their customers' lawyers). If that had happened, it's easy to imagine those companies' modern incarnations being more adversarial with regards to new surveillance laws, court orders, and appropriate process. It was clear then that Candidate Obama would easily cave on core issues for political expedience, just as it is now. I'm not saying that there were better alternative candidates. I'm just saying that if you'd really have followed "2007 Obama anywhere." you either weren't paying attention or willfully deceived yourself. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html [2] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

reeses 13y ago

Every time a 'new' president does something that seems completely illegal on a national security matter, I have this little film reel (er, h.264? Youtube video?) that plays in my head. It generally begins in the Movie-Standard high-level, windowless, government briefing room. President and the national security advisors are there. The advisors spill whatever beans are appropriate to the situation. President pulls a Home Alone face and poops his pants. Obviously, it doesn't let the GHWBs, or any president, off the hook. I imagine it to be a test of the sort of moral character we should focus on when evaluating candidates, rather than whether they inhaled or let a skanky woman sit on their lap while boating. Maybe candidates should get a briefing six months before the election and then we can make sure we elect a total bastard from the start.