8 ms·

Germans Loved Obama. Now We Don’t Trust Him

229 points by mxfh 13y ago

iaskwhy 13y ago
The infographic linked in the article is amazing: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention For those who don't want to read it, it's six months of the author's metadata gathered by T-Mobile being displayed on a map.
- 2mur 13y ago
  That's amazing. So powerful. They have this information on all of us.
- ajtaylor 13y ago
  I only watched the first couple of days, but this is seriously powerful stuff. And scary if you think about it too much.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  Have an up-vote! I came to the comments to place this link. The level of detail is incredible and scary. Combine this with the actual content of the mails, social media, search queries and you have basically injected yourself into the mind of people.
RexRollman 13y ago
Not just the Germans.
criley2 13y ago
As Germans feign outrage for the actions of the Five Eyes, specifically the UK and America, they rubber stamp the same style laws that amusingly, went into effect very recently: http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fdigital%2Fdatenschutz%2F2013-03%2Fbestandsdaten-breyer-bundestag http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_... Forcing telecoms to keep data available for on demand searches of intensely personal citizens information.
- bennyg 13y ago
  This is why, in this age of mass media and constant opinion, perception is the only thing that matters. The NSA has been doing this for years and other countries have too. Everyone suspected it, backhandedly inferred it. Now the outrage happens when the media takes him as a dark horse. It's unfortunate, but unless you're a scientist, that's the system we live in.
- DoubleMalt 13y ago
  Well the German supreme court declared these laws partly unconstitutional. In Austria the supreme court has still to decide. Of course these laws should be abolished. But these cases show an important difference: These laws while outrageous, were created transparently and published. This enabled citizens to take actions against them, and hopefully at some point they will be abolished. In the case of the NSA everything was covered by gag orders under the penalty of committing a felony. That is way more insidious.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The laws underlying those gag orders are also public, transparent, debated beforehand, etc. The principle of the gag order comes from the implementation of the law. Obviously the public law itself allows gag orders, otherwise Google's lawyers would tell Google to go ahead and publish them. Gag orders have been around in America, at all levels of law enforcement and security, since waaaaay before all this.
    - DoubleMalt 13y ago
      This is a big defect in the American justice system imho.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Nothing more than OPSEC, really. The big defect is allowing long-duration (or even permanent) gag orders, and not just for the NSA-style stuff. There's been quite a few court cases where parties settle on something which is public-interest but the judge seals the whole damn case forever.
DoubleMalt 13y ago
Well written. Being myself an Austrian (not only by economic affiliation) with ties to the USA I just today contemplated that in a way Obama will do much more damage to the American reputation than Bush (2) ever could. Bush could be seen as an anomaly. He was not elected by a majority of the American people for his first turn, and even if everybody shook their head about the obvious oilgrab in the Iraq based on blatant lies, people could somehow understand that you don't change an administration amidst a war. Obama was seen as a return of the USA that was always admired by many if not most people in Europe. Like someone coming to their senses after a violent fit, Europe was ready to embrace an America that put effort in preserving and spreading civil rights, peace and democracy with means that did not involve letting countries descend in mayhem that bloody dictators would envy. Then - he did not shut down Guantanamo (and he could have done it if he had acted fast and spent time to convince his party) - he did not Veto a continuation of the Patriot Act - he let his administration spy on the press to an unprecedented extent - he defends spying on everybody outside or with ties to outside the country If this is the rational, the civilized America, then we are in deep trouble.
- mpyne 13y ago
  While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics before we're able to locate the parallel universe where Obama may have been able to shut down the prison at Gitmo. I think it's hard to imagine the sheer and total resistance to shutting down that prison if you haven't been in the country to see it yourself. I still don't understand the reasoning to this day. But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. I don't know whether it's a bunch of representatives attempting to look 'Tough on Terror' or what... but you have to pin Guantanamo on the people as a whole.
  - AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
    He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.
luka1413 13y ago
For now, the whole world don't trust US, or any cloud service provided by US.
ianstallings 13y ago
It blows my mind that people fall for political windbaggery. Europe seems especially starry-eyed for Obama. It's kind of strange.
- ninjin 13y ago
  Given the eight years of the Bush administration Europe was as desperate for change as the American left and I think this accounts for most of the initial excitement about him. In hindsight this may seem foolish, but looking back I can remember exactly how great the divide was (not that it seems to be getting any better).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
Sounds like the Germans are getting a genuine American experience.
mynameishere 13y ago
Getting kind-of tired of this. When the Snowden "revelations" came out, my thought was "And...?" Everybody paying attention knew the US government, and all governments, were sucking down all the data they could get. If you don't like it, AES-256 is widely available. Problem solved. If you think bitching or voting (Ha!) is more powerful than encryption, think again.
edwardunknown 13y ago
First: what does this have to do with technology? Second: damn right Germany shouldn't trust us, because the world doesn't trust Germany and hopefully it never will. It doesn't bother me in the least that we're keeping an eye on them, I'd be nervous if we weren't.
graycat 13y ago
Once my (bright, Valedictorian, PBK, 'Summa Cum Laude', Woodrow Wilson, NSF, Ph.D.) wife gave me a question: We were running a little consulting company, and one of our clients was from a wealthy family. My wife asked me about that client, "What has he actually done himself?" that is, that he didn't mostly get just handed to him from his position in the wealth and power of his family? That was a good question. Prescient. Indeed, when he started making decisions really on his own, he made just awful decisions and lost again and again, in total a bundle, a big fraction of his share of the family's wealth. Not unexpected: The great American novel is rags to rags in three generations! Okay, look at Ohama: What has he actually done besides have several smart and/or wealthy people help him ride a wave to get elected? From what I can see, generally his approach is when there is an issue in the news, have his writers formulate some cliches on the issue, mouth the cliches, and then do nothing or nothing significant and wait until the MSM, etc. forget about the issue. In one step more detail, he has in mind a coalition -- that's one role of a politician, to form a winning coalition. So, e.g., one of the groups he wants in his coalition are the greenies. So, back early in 2008 he gave an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle where he said that his idea was to have carbon "cap and trade" and slowly "ratchet up" the standards until the coal fired electric generating plants were "bankrupt". When I read that, I went into orbit somewhere in the outer planets before returning to earth. Why? Easy enough to find in Department of Energy reports was that then 49% of all of our electric power and, as I recall, 23% of all our energy was coming from coal. So, in simple, stark terms, his "bankrupt", taken literally, would do more damage to the US economy than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ever hoped. And Obama admitted the effect, that electric rates would "skyrocket". But eventually I understood that I had gotten all excited over next to nothing: Yes, apparently some old coal fired plants have been shut down -- a good report would be of interest but I don't have a reference to one. But electric rates have not gone up like a "skyrocket". I doubt that the coal plant shutdowns have amounted to much. Indeed, Buffett recently bought Burlington Northern Railroad which is big in hauling coal to coal plants. So, no doubt Buffett took Obama's SF Chronicle interview as, to quote the movie All the President's Men, "total BS". So, what the heck did he do? Well, he got some greenies all happy for a while and likely got some political donations. With the happy greenies, he got freedom to aim some of the TARP II and stimulus money (supposedly $92 billion and later another $45 billion) to green projects that likely resulted in some political power and campaign donations. Big, huge waste, right? Well, yes, but maybe not totally useless: Heck in WWII we got out of The Great Depression in about 90 days by pouring money into guns and bullets that were junk by 1945 (suddenly had 1-3 jobs for everyone who could work, women included, especially if they could learn to use a rivet gun). So, maybe pouring $92 billion plus $45 billion into projects that might, unfortunately, be just junk soon enough might help get the economy going, e.g., as that money soon gets spent for the usual things -- food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, education, .... Or, it was like the helicopter solution -- fly over the US and drop money until the economy is going again. Maybe the greenies are less than 20% of the population. So, what about the 80+% of the population not greenies who don't want to see 49% of our electric utility industry destroyed? Well, apparently that 80+% just didn't pay attention to the Obama greenie remarks and otherwise didn't take him seriously. And one step more, as soon as shutting down our electric power started to pinch, people would scream bloody murder and the situation would be turned around. So, net, curiously, the 20-% get all excited and contribute to a coalition long enough to win an election; the 80+% mostly pay no attention; and soon enough everyone forgets about the issue. So, can build a coalition, say, long enough to get elected: (1) Pick a list of controversial issues and, for each, pick a small group of highly concerned citizens. (2) In some speeches, feed each group some radical raw meat cliches that they will really like. (3) In reality, do next to nothing or nothing on the cliches. (4) Let time pass, new issues dominate the news, and the old issues fade into the background. Then what about the real work? (1) Wait until others propose solutions. (2) Wait until some such solutions get some traction. (3a) If the solution is really popular in the country, then support it. (3b) If the solution is just to be implemented in the Executive Branch, then let it but don't publicly support it; if the solution flops, blame the lower level people who implemented it; if the solution is successful, take credit. But, mostly don't actually have a vision and push it and bet own political capital on it. If Obama has a vision, then my guess is that he just wants as much more money and power in DC as he can bring there so that DC can take the US by the horns and lead it somewhere, say, to social justice. Otherwise he gets time to work on his golf game and jump shot. What's wrong? He's not really leading. He's not really out in front with solutions. He mostly is just letting things happen from others and avoiding being close enough to get blamed. So, there's not much coordination. Mostly he's avoiding blame. Why don't people notice what he's doing? Because things, especially the economy and wars, are not bad enough for people to be interrupting the rest of their lives to raise hell insisting on something better. And, people do pay a lot of attention to the MSM, and the MSM has a very short attention span. E.g., for the Benghazi controversy? The NSA controversy pushed that out of the headlines. For the NSA controversy? Issue cliches and otherwise let Clapper, General Alexander, and Biden meet the public. For Snowden, mostly just f'get about him. Back to the golf game and jump shot. Or, "How to be President without Really Trying". Works as long as the voters put up with it and there's no crisis that demands more. Crisis? What about hurricane Sandy? As at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy "Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history." So, with hurricane Katrina, W got excoriated, eviscerated, drawn, quartered, etc. With hurricane Sandy Governor Christie got some publicity, Mayor Bloomberg was busy, but Obama got no blame. Cute.
ajtaylor 13y ago
The standout quote for me is on the second page: "When courts and judges negotiate secretly, when direct data transfers occur without limits, when huge data storage rather than targeted pursuit of individuals becomes the norm, all sense of proportionality and accountability is lost." This sums up the current situation quite nicely. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Always.
vor_ 13y ago
I have to admit I was never a fan of Obama and didn't understand those who trusted his promises as a candidate. Every candidate makes promises they rarely keep, but Obama was well known for the level of change he claimed he would bring. None of this administration's scandals have surprised me.
galaktor 13y ago
Highlight from the article: The guy published [1] the meta-data T-Mobile collected from his phone as a practical example of the information that can be extracted from it. [1] http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention
ck2 13y ago
Now imagine you live in the USA and double that before/after feeling. Not saying there was a better alternative but what have we done.

229 points by mxfh 13y ago

The infographic linked in the article is amazing: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention For those who don't want to read it, it's six months of the author's metadata gathered by T-Mobile being displayed on a map.

2mur 13y ago
That's amazing. So powerful. They have this information on all of us.
ajtaylor 13y ago
I only watched the first couple of days, but this is seriously powerful stuff. And scary if you think about it too much.
digitalengineer 13y ago
Have an up-vote! I came to the comments to place this link. The level of detail is incredible and scary. Combine this with the actual content of the mails, social media, search queries and you have basically injected yourself into the mind of people.

RexRollman 13y ago

Not just the Germans.

criley2 13y ago

As Germans feign outrage for the actions of the Five Eyes, specifically the UK and America, they rubber stamp the same style laws that amusingly, went into effect very recently: http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fdigital%2Fdatenschutz%2F2013-03%2Fbestandsdaten-breyer-bundestag http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_... Forcing telecoms to keep data available for on demand searches of intensely personal citizens information.

bennyg 13y ago
This is why, in this age of mass media and constant opinion, perception is the only thing that matters. The NSA has been doing this for years and other countries have too. Everyone suspected it, backhandedly inferred it. Now the outrage happens when the media takes him as a dark horse. It's unfortunate, but unless you're a scientist, that's the system we live in.
DoubleMalt 13y ago
Well the German supreme court declared these laws partly unconstitutional. In Austria the supreme court has still to decide. Of course these laws should be abolished. But these cases show an important difference: These laws while outrageous, were created transparently and published. This enabled citizens to take actions against them, and hopefully at some point they will be abolished. In the case of the NSA everything was covered by gag orders under the penalty of committing a felony. That is way more insidious.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The laws underlying those gag orders are also public, transparent, debated beforehand, etc. The principle of the gag order comes from the implementation of the law. Obviously the public law itself allows gag orders, otherwise Google's lawyers would tell Google to go ahead and publish them. Gag orders have been around in America, at all levels of law enforcement and security, since waaaaay before all this.
  - DoubleMalt 13y ago
    This is a big defect in the American justice system imho.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Nothing more than OPSEC, really. The big defect is allowing long-duration (or even permanent) gag orders, and not just for the NSA-style stuff. There's been quite a few court cases where parties settle on something which is public-interest but the judge seals the whole damn case forever.

DoubleMalt 13y ago

Well written. Being myself an Austrian (not only by economic affiliation) with ties to the USA I just today contemplated that in a way Obama will do much more damage to the American reputation than Bush (2) ever could. Bush could be seen as an anomaly. He was not elected by a majority of the American people for his first turn, and even if everybody shook their head about the obvious oilgrab in the Iraq based on blatant lies, people could somehow understand that you don't change an administration amidst a war. Obama was seen as a return of the USA that was always admired by many if not most people in Europe. Like someone coming to their senses after a violent fit, Europe was ready to embrace an America that put effort in preserving and spreading civil rights, peace and democracy with means that did not involve letting countries descend in mayhem that bloody dictators would envy. Then - he did not shut down Guantanamo (and he could have done it if he had acted fast and spent time to convince his party) - he did not Veto a continuation of the Patriot Act - he let his administration spy on the press to an unprecedented extent - he defends spying on everybody outside or with ties to outside the country If this is the rational, the civilized America, then we are in deep trouble.

mpyne 13y ago
While I agree in essence with your characterization of the job done by Obama, I do want to point out (again) that it will take quite some advances in physics before we're able to locate the parallel universe where Obama may have been able to shut down the prison at Gitmo. I think it's hard to imagine the sheer and total resistance to shutting down that prison if you haven't been in the country to see it yourself. I still don't understand the reasoning to this day. But there was never a chance, with the Congresses Obama was handed with, that the prison would be completely shut down. I don't know whether it's a bunch of representatives attempting to look 'Tough on Terror' or what... but you have to pin Guantanamo on the people as a whole.
- AlexeiSadeski 13y ago
  He could've shut it down a dozen different ways, had he wanted to. He's expended zero political capital on this issue.

luka1413 13y ago

For now, the whole world don't trust US, or any cloud service provided by US.

ianstallings 13y ago

It blows my mind that people fall for political windbaggery. Europe seems especially starry-eyed for Obama. It's kind of strange.

ninjin 13y ago
Given the eight years of the Bush administration Europe was as desperate for change as the American left and I think this accounts for most of the initial excitement about him. In hindsight this may seem foolish, but looking back I can remember exactly how great the divide was (not that it seems to be getting any better).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

AlexeiSadeski 13y ago

Sounds like the Germans are getting a genuine American experience.

mynameishere 13y ago

Getting kind-of tired of this. When the Snowden "revelations" came out, my thought was "And...?" Everybody paying attention knew the US government, and all governments, were sucking down all the data they could get. If you don't like it, AES-256 is widely available. Problem solved. If you think bitching or voting (Ha!) is more powerful than encryption, think again.

edwardunknown 13y ago

First: what does this have to do with technology? Second: damn right Germany shouldn't trust us, because the world doesn't trust Germany and hopefully it never will. It doesn't bother me in the least that we're keeping an eye on them, I'd be nervous if we weren't.

graycat 13y ago

Once my (bright, Valedictorian, PBK, 'Summa Cum Laude', Woodrow Wilson, NSF, Ph.D.) wife gave me a question: We were running a little consulting company, and one of our clients was from a wealthy family. My wife asked me about that client, "What has he actually done himself?" that is, that he didn't mostly get just handed to him from his position in the wealth and power of his family? That was a good question. Prescient. Indeed, when he started making decisions really on his own, he made just awful decisions and lost again and again, in total a bundle, a big fraction of his share of the family's wealth. Not unexpected: The great American novel is rags to rags in three generations! Okay, look at Ohama: What has he actually done besides have several smart and/or wealthy people help him ride a wave to get elected? From what I can see, generally his approach is when there is an issue in the news, have his writers formulate some cliches on the issue, mouth the cliches, and then do nothing or nothing significant and wait until the MSM, etc. forget about the issue. In one step more detail, he has in mind a coalition -- that's one role of a politician, to form a winning coalition. So, e.g., one of the groups he wants in his coalition are the greenies. So, back early in 2008 he gave an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle where he said that his idea was to have carbon "cap and trade" and slowly "ratchet up" the standards until the coal fired electric generating plants were "bankrupt". When I read that, I went into orbit somewhere in the outer planets before returning to earth. Why? Easy enough to find in Department of Energy reports was that then 49% of all of our electric power and, as I recall, 23% of all our energy was coming from coal. So, in simple, stark terms, his "bankrupt", taken literally, would do more damage to the US economy than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ever hoped. And Obama admitted the effect, that electric rates would "skyrocket". But eventually I understood that I had gotten all excited over next to nothing: Yes, apparently some old coal fired plants have been shut down -- a good report would be of interest but I don't have a reference to one. But electric rates have not gone up like a "skyrocket". I doubt that the coal plant shutdowns have amounted to much. Indeed, Buffett recently bought Burlington Northern Railroad which is big in hauling coal to coal plants. So, no doubt Buffett took Obama's SF Chronicle interview as, to quote the movie All the President's Men, "total BS". So, what the heck did he do? Well, he got some greenies all happy for a while and likely got some political donations. With the happy greenies, he got freedom to aim some of the TARP II and stimulus money (supposedly $92 billion and later another $45 billion) to green projects that likely resulted in some political power and campaign donations. Big, huge waste, right? Well, yes, but maybe not totally useless: Heck in WWII we got out of The Great Depression in about 90 days by pouring money into guns and bullets that were junk by 1945 (suddenly had 1-3 jobs for everyone who could work, women included, especially if they could learn to use a rivet gun). So, maybe pouring $92 billion plus $45 billion into projects that might, unfortunately, be just junk soon enough might help get the economy going, e.g., as that money soon gets spent for the usual things -- food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, education, .... Or, it was like the helicopter solution -- fly over the US and drop money until the economy is going again. Maybe the greenies are less than 20% of the population. So, what about the 80+% of the population not greenies who don't want to see 49% of our electric utility industry destroyed? Well, apparently that 80+% just didn't pay attention to the Obama greenie remarks and otherwise didn't take him seriously. And one step more, as soon as shutting down our electric power started to pinch, people would scream bloody murder and the situation would be turned around. So, net, curiously, the 20-% get all excited and contribute to a coalition long enough to win an election; the 80+% mostly pay no attention; and soon enough everyone forgets about the issue. So, can build a coalition, say, long enough to get elected: (1) Pick a list of controversial issues and, for each, pick a small group of highly concerned citizens. (2) In some speeches, feed each group some radical raw meat cliches that they will really like. (3) In reality, do next to nothing or nothing on the cliches. (4) Let time pass, new issues dominate the news, and the old issues fade into the background. Then what about the real work? (1) Wait until others propose solutions. (2) Wait until some such solutions get some traction. (3a) If the solution is really popular in the country, then support it. (3b) If the solution is just to be implemented in the Executive Branch, then let it but don't publicly support it; if the solution flops, blame the lower level people who implemented it; if the solution is successful, take credit. But, mostly don't actually have a vision and push it and bet own political capital on it. If Obama has a vision, then my guess is that he just wants as much more money and power in DC as he can bring there so that DC can take the US by the horns and lead it somewhere, say, to social justice. Otherwise he gets time to work on his golf game and jump shot. What's wrong? He's not really leading. He's not really out in front with solutions. He mostly is just letting things happen from others and avoiding being close enough to get blamed. So, there's not much coordination. Mostly he's avoiding blame. Why don't people notice what he's doing? Because things, especially the economy and wars, are not bad enough for people to be interrupting the rest of their lives to raise hell insisting on something better. And, people do pay a lot of attention to the MSM, and the MSM has a very short attention span. E.g., for the Benghazi controversy? The NSA controversy pushed that out of the headlines. For the NSA controversy? Issue cliches and otherwise let Clapper, General Alexander, and Biden meet the public. For Snowden, mostly just f'get about him. Back to the golf game and jump shot. Or, "How to be President without Really Trying". Works as long as the voters put up with it and there's no crisis that demands more. Crisis? What about hurricane Sandy? As at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy "Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history." So, with hurricane Katrina, W got excoriated, eviscerated, drawn, quartered, etc. With hurricane Sandy Governor Christie got some publicity, Mayor Bloomberg was busy, but Obama got no blame. Cute.

ajtaylor 13y ago

The standout quote for me is on the second page: "When courts and judges negotiate secretly, when direct data transfers occur without limits, when huge data storage rather than targeted pursuit of individuals becomes the norm, all sense of proportionality and accountability is lost." This sums up the current situation quite nicely. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Always.

vor_ 13y ago

I have to admit I was never a fan of Obama and didn't understand those who trusted his promises as a candidate. Every candidate makes promises they rarely keep, but Obama was well known for the level of change he claimed he would bring. None of this administration's scandals have surprised me.

galaktor 13y ago

Highlight from the article: The guy published [1] the meta-data T-Mobile collected from his phone as a practical example of the information that can be extracted from it. [1] http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention

ck2 13y ago

Now imagine you live in the USA and double that before/after feeling. Not saying there was a better alternative but what have we done.