9 ms·

Sen. Wyden imagines the White House is willing to reconsider surveillance

113 points by j_baker 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago
According to Obama "everything was legal". I don't buy it, but if we assume that what he said was true, then it doesn't matter what he does until the laws themselves get repealed.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You would want to go further and actually have laws passed to make metadata collection and foreign surveillance illegal (or at least more strictly controlled) since otherwise they'd still be legal after repealing FISA and its amendments. And then go further along with repealing the odious portions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
ceejayoz 13y ago
Ending, or ending and restarting with a new name so they can say "That program was discontinued" without lying?
- canadiancreed 13y ago
  I picture exactly this happening. "Oh Trendstone? Yes that project was shelved. It's now called Blackbriar, but as you didn't ask that, so we wont' tell you it's the same thing with a different name."
  - grbalaffa 13y ago
    Just like when Steve Ballmer claimed[1] that "Vista has never been delayed" because they changed the name.[2] [1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-extra-steve-ballmer-shrugs-off-the-critics http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-extra-... [2] http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-vista-longhorn-how-microsoft-explained-name-change-employees-partners http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-vista-l...
tswartz 13y ago
A big issue is that after all these revelations it is clear that the NSA and other branches of government has not been transparent. The trust has eroded and it's hard to take Obama at face value when he says he may end or reduce these programs. They can easily just change them around. I'm hesitant to say it, but more congressional oversight is needed in this area.
- canadiancreed 13y ago
  I wonder if Congress didn't support such matters in the first place.
  - tswartz 13y ago
    I feel like Congress must have known what was going on. Washington is all about using secrets as political currency. I find it hard to believe that so many politicians had no idea. Most likely trying to deflect negative public reaction.
vor_ 13y ago
The Senator merely said he has "a feeling" that the administration is concerned about bulk phone records collection. As of yet, there's no definitive confirmation that this is true.
sage_joch 13y ago
If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of those in charge.
- baddox 13y ago
  Of course, laws don't enforce themselves, so unless you're doing it yourself, you're always relying on the "generosity" of someone with power to enforce laws.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Well, what we're relying upon is the integrity of those gov't officials involved, especially the courts, strength of whistleblower protections, and the press. All have IMO abdicated their constitutional responsibility.
    - D9u 13y ago
      I agree... I seem to recall a time when "yellow journalism" was frowned upon, yet recently it's about all we've seen from the mainstream media.
  - javert 13y ago
    In a proper system, the electorate has the power to remove and empower officials, who therefore do not have independent power. And, the electorate is "generous" (rational) enough to concede to invididual rights. The latter is actually the problem in the USA. Unlike in 1776, the intellectual leaders of the country (and therefore the populace) are anti-individual rights.
    - newnewnew 13y ago
      In 1776, only a small group of the educated elite could vote. In 2013, you don't even have to be literate.
      - 13y ago
canadiancreed 13y ago
That it says "considered" and not "will be revoked immediately" is incredibly telling.
tlrobinson 13y ago
Alternatively: "Obama considers preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States."
- genwin 13y ago
  Which he swore an oath to do, lest he become an enemy of it.
coldcode 13y ago
It would like an Oriental Rug dealer in my area, who constantly has a going out of business sale, only to open with a new name next year.
- cesarbs 13y ago
  Seattle? :)
- lcampbell 13y ago
  That sounds more like tax evasion, using business bad debts[1]: the rug store is owned by a parent corporation from whom the property is leased (and/or which provides other goods/services, like the rugs themselves). A rate is charged in excess of the store's profit such that the store is in debt to the parent corp when the store goes out of business. The parent corporation makes off with the profits, offset by the tax break from dissolving the partner's debts. Then again, I have no idea how taxes work and can't help but view everything pessimistically :( -- [1] http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html
pvnick 13y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. Also, someone broke the law. We need to demand prosecution or the program will simply be renamed and moved on to a different budget.
- tarellel 13y ago
  It'll still be there in one form or another, it'll just be less obvious from those actually looking for it.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >I'll believe it when I see it. Right. And, that's just it. Will we see it? We will continue to have no idea what's going on, unless another Snowden steps up. And one thing we have seen before was push-back on the TIA (Total Information Awareness) program causing its proponents to "reconsider" and Congress to defund it. In other words, stop talking about it and just do it quietly under a million different programs with a million different names. Ironically, this NSA program itself that "Obama is considering ending" was one of the original TIA programs.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    The only thing that was defunded was any program called "TIA." The behavior has continued apace under other names just fine. Thus it was always so, and this is just another "if you can't change the product, change the packaging" non-change from Obama. He's just trying to trick you, because they're going to keep on doing whatever they want to do until people start getting voted out of office in favor of people who won't fund the behavior.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >"until people start getting voted out of office in favor of people who won't fund the behavior" And add to that the fact that we don't have the information we need to make those choices as voters. Remember, the only reason we know about this instance is that someone (Snowden) was willing to take a risk, and he is now considered a criminal for that. Who knows what else is out there and who knows what else is coming (including this, again)? People need to be prosecuted. Beyond that, the entire architecture needs to be dismantled: the "War on Terror" ended and the egregiously overreaching, rights-curtailing government culture it created needs to be rolled back. The security-industrial-military-complex needs to be finally checked as well. We need to roll back the Patriot Act, examine the ethos of a Justice department that works overtime to loosely interpret our Constitution to expand its power, and put this run amok unitary executive theory back in its box.
rosser 13y ago
This appears to be speculation on Wyden's part. It's my fervent hope that he's right, but I see no reason to believe this is anything more than hope on his part, as well.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
Better title: The propaganda arm of an enemy state reports that a politician in our state said that the head of our state is considering ending a surveillance program that would be completely unremarkable in the enemy state, at least according to the propaganda arm of our state.
- codyb 13y ago
  Exactly what I though, although perhaps not as strongly. But yes, the headline seems misleading to me as well. There is nothing from Obama at all in this article, just Senator Wyden saying that he imagines the White House is willing to reconsider the surveillance policies.
adamcanady 13y ago
To those saying "I'll believe it when I see it" and the like - I do think that statements like this should be taken with a grain of salt. The most important part of this, however, is that we are seeing that the US administration is actually continuing the conversation on these programs and not just insisting that they're legal. I think this is an important step in the right direction, and we need to keep pressing the issue and not just focus on where Edward Snowden is in the world.
tootie 13y ago
We've fallen into a trap where no one will believe the program is over regardless of what he says, so he gets no benefit from actually doing it.
- klausjensen 13y ago
  ...Other than doing the right thing. But then again, it seems that stopped mattering long ago (Guantanamo, wars etc).
easy_rider 13y ago
I bet the NSA internal branding dept. will have a tough time coming up with clever names for the new programs. Maybe something in the lines of FOCUS or LIGHTSABRE ;) But seriously, these govt. programs have been closed and restarted under so many new codenames in the past, it's really tough to believe this. And even if it will happen, how will we find the trust? Closing down PRISM etc will be an admission of wrongdoing, and the subsequent lying about it. And the 'weasel' wording like Snowden mentioned; the distinction they make in wiretapping between 'information aggregation' and actually looking into it. Which obviously is the most absurd justification as all arguments against wiretapping still apply with this concept. With this kind of mindset, one must think they will just restart the programs and make them even more covert, not?
- erichurkman 13y ago
  If we're being cynical, the administration can just announce an "organized" shutdown and give a timeline, say 2 years. All government projects are delayed at least 50%, so let's say 4 years (government math). Four years from now a new president will be in office and can blissfully ignore the timeline and re-open the projects. Look at how long it took to exit Iraq, or how long it's taking to exit Afghanistan, or how long it's taking to shutter Guantanamo. Hell, if Guantanamo is any indication, the executive will blame the legislative for not passing laws allowing them to shutter the program, and the legislative will blame the executive for not closing the program down. Blame goes in a circle and the populace gets screwed.
  - easy_rider 13y ago
    Sad but true. If those who in the end are responsible for allowing unconstitutional or straight-up criminal actions by government appointed commissions not being held accountable after they are relieved of their function, the justice system is evidently corrupt, and we could expect anything to happen. Yet, I'm really sad these days, for common sense is being ridiculed, and only a minority seems to notice. If you don't agree with absurd infringements of your privacy : you are not a patriot; if you are not a patriot then you are a traitor. I know it's a bit black/white, but these kind of speeches are reminiscent to that kind of status quo: "The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
perlpimp 13y ago
burden of the proof will be on the president as trust is now gone, at least of those who were paying attention. proof has to be quite extraordinary - otherwise it might be construed as dismantling and hiding said programs even more. Or augmenting their visibility.
genwin 13y ago
Translation: Obama is getting hammered by wealthy people harmed by the PRISM backlash. He'll consider renaming the surveillance programs.
- samstave 13y ago
  They will redefine the definition of the terms "surveillance" "citizen" "enemy" "foreigner" "whistleblower" and "leak" The laws will be reinterpreted around these new definitions and he'll claim victory.
  - genwin 13y ago
    We'll get here eventually: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    - javert 13y ago
      Careful, Big Sis is watching us. Literally.
    - wwhitman 13y ago
      CIRCLEJERK IS ACTION
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Huh, I thought that word auto-killed comments. I am so sick of seeing it.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        but... but... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029098
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Ha! Touché.
jlgaddis 13y ago
FTA: "Sen. Wyden said he imagines the White House is willing to reconsider the current surveillance policies ..." That's just a little bit different from what the headline would lead you to believe.
- sigzero 13y ago
  Holy s. That is 100% not what the headline says.
Spooky23 13y ago
It's easy to tell if this actually happens -- you'll see massive layoffs of IT people when the top secret clouds dissipate.
- joering2 13y ago
  Exactly. Will be interesting to see Obama shutting down the NSA program, while some other official will be cutting the ribbon in Utah in three months from now. http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-data-080502716.html http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-data-080...
samstave 13y ago
So just getting this newsbyte out into the zeitgeist is really what they want. Put out this little sentence - let people latch onto it and carry on as normal.
linohh 13y ago
Oh, that's a good one. Time to create a new Three Letter Agency.
clientbiller 13y ago
"ending"
gesman 13y ago
If Clinton would say "I am considering ending relationship with Monica Lewinsky" - that would sound much less ridiculous ...
ameister14 13y ago
This is politics. In the short term, the politician gets a boost from being associated with this and the perception if his having influenced Obama. In the long term, even if nothing happens you won't remember his involvement because Obama is mentioned and has a much bigger name. It's well done, but it's just political posturing.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I'd be surprised. Most people seem not to care. It doesn't strike me that there would be a political advantage. I don't think that Democrats would suddenly turn Republican since the Republicans are at least as bad on authoritarianism and spying. I'm getting the vibe that it may destroy world consumption of American electronics and software, but those birds have flown. I can't see us regaining any credibility on that issue any time soon. The only saving grace is the involvement of practically every other Western government. But, I would certainly welcome such a development.
x0054 13y ago
I'll believe it when there is a signed pardon for Snowden! So... Never.
gfodor 13y ago
Honestly the only way this will happen is as long as there is a Democrat in the White House. No, not because Democrats are better on privacy, but because the only thing Republicans love more than voting in draconian policies to fight "terror" is voting on anything that makes Obama look bad.
inzax 13y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. Oh wait, its top secret. I guess I'll never believe it or even trust the government on this matter.
gnosis 13y ago
There was an article on the BBC site recently about a spy program during WW2 that consisted of pampering high-ranking German POW's in a mansion while British agents listened in through bugging devices. Apparently, the program worked wonderfully, and they got a lot of useful intelligence out of it. However, word somehow got out that German prisoners there were being treated like royalty while the British public starved. There was outrage in Parliament, and Churchill ordered the program shut down. British intelligence pretended to follow Churchill's orders, but actually continued the program in secret. The information they were getting was just too useful. They just stopped telling Churchill about it. I expect something similar might happen here. To the public's knowledge, to most of Congress, and maybe even to Obama, the program might appear to be shut down. But it'll either continue wholesale or morph in to something else that's effectively the same (or even worse). Unfortunately, there really is no way to verify the words of these spy agencies. Virtually no one has the clearance to go inside their datacenters and check. Now they'll probably just be a lot more careful about keeping what they do secret. Remember that the NSA is far from the only secret agency in the US. For a long time its very existence was denied. The running joke in Washington was that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency". Eventually, its existence was confirmed. But there are probably dozens if not hundreds of other secret agencies that operate under the so-called "black budget" that Congress authorizes. Who knows what they do? Something like PRISM could easily migrate to one or more of them.
- grovulent 13y ago
  Very good point - but at least it won't be as easy for them to do it. These NSA activities require the co-operation and silence of a lot of different entities - and that would be much harder to obtain if they don't have legal standing. Plus - if you get caught going against the executive and the congress - you'll eventually lose your funding. Having said that - I tend to agree with the comments above suggesting that the executive will just rename it all and try and make the story go away while actually ramping up the program.
  - gnosis 13y ago
    As far as funding goes, I heard an interesting program[1] recently on History Counts[2] which claimed that the CIA was covertly funding its own operations in Southeast Asia through drug trafficking.[3][4] In comparison, the wholesale spy program that's been in the news recently has far more potential for profit through economic espionage, blackmail, and various types of political manipulation. It could easily be self-financing if the information gathered through it was exploited. This program is a proverbial goose laying golden eggs for the government. I really can not imagine them closing it down over a bit of bad press (which will probably die down and blow over as soon as the next big scandal hits). [1] - http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027 http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027 [2] - http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts [3] - A small excerpt: Q: "Through the drug profits, were these operations essentially self-financing?" A: "Everything in the Far East was self-financing" Q: "And they were off the books, so there was no public record or accounting?" A: "Of course I'm speculating here, because no one has done me the favor of showing me the CIA's books, but I think when we get to the scale of a 35,000 man army in Laos in the 1960's -- Congress found out about that and held hearings in to it and were complaining they've never been told about it, so I assume all of that was financed by the drug traffic than it was -- whatever input there was from the CIA's legitimate budget was minimal compared to what was happening... that was built up continuously from the 1950's" [4] - I'm not saying I believe in this particular conspiracy theory. I've really not looked in to this subject beyond this one History Counts show. But I could see something like it happening, and the current mood is one where such conspiracy theories are starting to look more probable than usual.
sigzero 13y ago
Obama promised that when he was running for President. Sorry, I don't believe him.
D9u 13y ago
I'm nitpicking here, but I thought that Microsoft was based in Redmond, WA. (from the article) how Microsoft worked hand-in-hand with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to ensure that law enforcement could bypass encryption mechanisms and easily listen-in and watch conversations conducted over Silicon Valley giant’s Outlook.com chat portal and Skype messaging platform. I'm not from California (been there twice,) and I've lived in Washington state, but is Microsoft considered to be a "Silicon Valley giant?"
fortepianissimo 13y ago
This doesn't change anything as long as FISA is the same.
lucb1e 13y ago
Sure he is. After all this negative publicity, how could he not be saying that? Even seriously considering it or just doing it, even if it were just to save his own ass. It doesn't matter what impact on security it has really. Either surveillance is not important for national security, or it's beneficial for himself to stop it. It might be either of the two, we don't know.
joshuaheard 13y ago
Just like he promised in his 2008 campaign.
brudgers 13y ago
Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too. That ending surveillance requires consideration indicates the probable outcome at the end of that consideration. The historic precedent for an agency unfettered with regard to building dossiers on citizens is Hoover's FBI. His files included elected politicians. I suspect it is naive to suppose that there is not a big file on each member of the executive branch.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too. Then he ran headlong into that Article I side of the government and had his ass handed back to him.
D9u 13y ago
What pisses me off is that the only reason any of the politicians are even considering the repeal of any domestic surveillance is because of "blowback." What about doing the right thing? What about our Bill of Rights? What about that fabled "Moral High Ground?"
medde 13y ago
Is that until the next whistle-blower shows up?
pvdm 13y ago
If you believe this then you believe in "hope" and "change".

113 points by j_baker 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

According to Obama "everything was legal". I don't buy it, but if we assume that what he said was true, then it doesn't matter what he does until the laws themselves get repealed.

mpyne 13y ago
You would want to go further and actually have laws passed to make metadata collection and foreign surveillance illegal (or at least more strictly controlled) since otherwise they'd still be legal after repealing FISA and its amendments. And then go further along with repealing the odious portions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

ceejayoz 13y ago

Ending, or ending and restarting with a new name so they can say "That program was discontinued" without lying?

canadiancreed 13y ago
I picture exactly this happening. "Oh Trendstone? Yes that project was shelved. It's now called Blackbriar, but as you didn't ask that, so we wont' tell you it's the same thing with a different name."
- grbalaffa 13y ago
  Just like when Steve Ballmer claimed[1] that "Vista has never been delayed" because they changed the name.[2] [1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-extra-steve-ballmer-shrugs-off-the-critics http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-extra-... [2] http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-vista-longhorn-how-microsoft-explained-name-change-employees-partners http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-vista-l...

tswartz 13y ago

A big issue is that after all these revelations it is clear that the NSA and other branches of government has not been transparent. The trust has eroded and it's hard to take Obama at face value when he says he may end or reduce these programs. They can easily just change them around. I'm hesitant to say it, but more congressional oversight is needed in this area.

canadiancreed 13y ago
I wonder if Congress didn't support such matters in the first place.
- tswartz 13y ago
  I feel like Congress must have known what was going on. Washington is all about using secrets as political currency. I find it hard to believe that so many politicians had no idea. Most likely trying to deflect negative public reaction.

vor_ 13y ago

The Senator merely said he has "a feeling" that the administration is concerned about bulk phone records collection. As of yet, there's no definitive confirmation that this is true.

sage_joch 13y ago

If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of those in charge.

baddox 13y ago
Of course, laws don't enforce themselves, so unless you're doing it yourself, you're always relying on the "generosity" of someone with power to enforce laws.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Well, what we're relying upon is the integrity of those gov't officials involved, especially the courts, strength of whistleblower protections, and the press. All have IMO abdicated their constitutional responsibility.
  - D9u 13y ago
    I agree... I seem to recall a time when "yellow journalism" was frowned upon, yet recently it's about all we've seen from the mainstream media.
- javert 13y ago
  In a proper system, the electorate has the power to remove and empower officials, who therefore do not have independent power. And, the electorate is "generous" (rational) enough to concede to invididual rights. The latter is actually the problem in the USA. Unlike in 1776, the intellectual leaders of the country (and therefore the populace) are anti-individual rights.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    In 1776, only a small group of the educated elite could vote. In 2013, you don't even have to be literate.
    - 13y ago

canadiancreed 13y ago

That it says "considered" and not "will be revoked immediately" is incredibly telling.

tlrobinson 13y ago

Alternatively: "Obama considers preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States."

genwin 13y ago
Which he swore an oath to do, lest he become an enemy of it.

coldcode 13y ago

It would like an Oriental Rug dealer in my area, who constantly has a going out of business sale, only to open with a new name next year.

cesarbs 13y ago
Seattle? :)
lcampbell 13y ago
That sounds more like tax evasion, using business bad debts[1]: the rug store is owned by a parent corporation from whom the property is leased (and/or which provides other goods/services, like the rugs themselves). A rate is charged in excess of the store's profit such that the store is in debt to the parent corp when the store goes out of business. The parent corporation makes off with the profits, offset by the tax break from dissolving the partner's debts. Then again, I have no idea how taxes work and can't help but view everything pessimistically :( -- [1] http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html

pvnick 13y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. Also, someone broke the law. We need to demand prosecution or the program will simply be renamed and moved on to a different budget.

tarellel 13y ago
It'll still be there in one form or another, it'll just be less obvious from those actually looking for it.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>I'll believe it when I see it. Right. And, that's just it. Will we see it? We will continue to have no idea what's going on, unless another Snowden steps up. And one thing we have seen before was push-back on the TIA (Total Information Awareness) program causing its proponents to "reconsider" and Congress to defund it. In other words, stop talking about it and just do it quietly under a million different programs with a million different names. Ironically, this NSA program itself that "Obama is considering ending" was one of the original TIA programs.
- rhizome 13y ago
  The only thing that was defunded was any program called "TIA." The behavior has continued apace under other names just fine. Thus it was always so, and this is just another "if you can't change the product, change the packaging" non-change from Obama. He's just trying to trick you, because they're going to keep on doing whatever they want to do until people start getting voted out of office in favor of people who won't fund the behavior.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >"until people start getting voted out of office in favor of people who won't fund the behavior" And add to that the fact that we don't have the information we need to make those choices as voters. Remember, the only reason we know about this instance is that someone (Snowden) was willing to take a risk, and he is now considered a criminal for that. Who knows what else is out there and who knows what else is coming (including this, again)? People need to be prosecuted. Beyond that, the entire architecture needs to be dismantled: the "War on Terror" ended and the egregiously overreaching, rights-curtailing government culture it created needs to be rolled back. The security-industrial-military-complex needs to be finally checked as well. We need to roll back the Patriot Act, examine the ethos of a Justice department that works overtime to loosely interpret our Constitution to expand its power, and put this run amok unitary executive theory back in its box.

rosser 13y ago

This appears to be speculation on Wyden's part. It's my fervent hope that he's right, but I see no reason to believe this is anything more than hope on his part, as well.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

Better title: The propaganda arm of an enemy state reports that a politician in our state said that the head of our state is considering ending a surveillance program that would be completely unremarkable in the enemy state, at least according to the propaganda arm of our state.

codyb 13y ago
Exactly what I though, although perhaps not as strongly. But yes, the headline seems misleading to me as well. There is nothing from Obama at all in this article, just Senator Wyden saying that he imagines the White House is willing to reconsider the surveillance policies.

adamcanady 13y ago

To those saying "I'll believe it when I see it" and the like - I do think that statements like this should be taken with a grain of salt. The most important part of this, however, is that we are seeing that the US administration is actually continuing the conversation on these programs and not just insisting that they're legal. I think this is an important step in the right direction, and we need to keep pressing the issue and not just focus on where Edward Snowden is in the world.

tootie 13y ago

We've fallen into a trap where no one will believe the program is over regardless of what he says, so he gets no benefit from actually doing it.

klausjensen 13y ago
...Other than doing the right thing. But then again, it seems that stopped mattering long ago (Guantanamo, wars etc).

easy_rider 13y ago

I bet the NSA internal branding dept. will have a tough time coming up with clever names for the new programs. Maybe something in the lines of FOCUS or LIGHTSABRE ;) But seriously, these govt. programs have been closed and restarted under so many new codenames in the past, it's really tough to believe this. And even if it will happen, how will we find the trust? Closing down PRISM etc will be an admission of wrongdoing, and the subsequent lying about it. And the 'weasel' wording like Snowden mentioned; the distinction they make in wiretapping between 'information aggregation' and actually looking into it. Which obviously is the most absurd justification as all arguments against wiretapping still apply with this concept. With this kind of mindset, one must think they will just restart the programs and make them even more covert, not?

erichurkman 13y ago
If we're being cynical, the administration can just announce an "organized" shutdown and give a timeline, say 2 years. All government projects are delayed at least 50%, so let's say 4 years (government math). Four years from now a new president will be in office and can blissfully ignore the timeline and re-open the projects. Look at how long it took to exit Iraq, or how long it's taking to exit Afghanistan, or how long it's taking to shutter Guantanamo. Hell, if Guantanamo is any indication, the executive will blame the legislative for not passing laws allowing them to shutter the program, and the legislative will blame the executive for not closing the program down. Blame goes in a circle and the populace gets screwed.
- easy_rider 13y ago
  Sad but true. If those who in the end are responsible for allowing unconstitutional or straight-up criminal actions by government appointed commissions not being held accountable after they are relieved of their function, the justice system is evidently corrupt, and we could expect anything to happen. Yet, I'm really sad these days, for common sense is being ridiculed, and only a minority seems to notice. If you don't agree with absurd infringements of your privacy : you are not a patriot; if you are not a patriot then you are a traitor. I know it's a bit black/white, but these kind of speeches are reminiscent to that kind of status quo: "The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

perlpimp 13y ago

burden of the proof will be on the president as trust is now gone, at least of those who were paying attention. proof has to be quite extraordinary - otherwise it might be construed as dismantling and hiding said programs even more. Or augmenting their visibility.

genwin 13y ago

Translation: Obama is getting hammered by wealthy people harmed by the PRISM backlash. He'll consider renaming the surveillance programs.

samstave 13y ago
They will redefine the definition of the terms "surveillance" "citizen" "enemy" "foreigner" "whistleblower" and "leak" The laws will be reinterpreted around these new definitions and he'll claim victory.
- genwin 13y ago
  We'll get here eventually: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
  - javert 13y ago
    Careful, Big Sis is watching us. Literally.
  - wwhitman 13y ago
    CIRCLEJERK IS ACTION
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Huh, I thought that word auto-killed comments. I am so sick of seeing it.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        but... but... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029098
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Ha! Touché.

jlgaddis 13y ago

FTA: "Sen. Wyden said he imagines the White House is willing to reconsider the current surveillance policies ..." That's just a little bit different from what the headline would lead you to believe.

sigzero 13y ago
Holy s. That is 100% not what the headline says.

Spooky23 13y ago

It's easy to tell if this actually happens -- you'll see massive layoffs of IT people when the top secret clouds dissipate.

joering2 13y ago
Exactly. Will be interesting to see Obama shutting down the NSA program, while some other official will be cutting the ribbon in Utah in three months from now. http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-data-080502716.html http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-data-080...

samstave 13y ago

So just getting this newsbyte out into the zeitgeist is really what they want. Put out this little sentence - let people latch onto it and carry on as normal.

linohh 13y ago

Oh, that's a good one. Time to create a new Three Letter Agency.

clientbiller 13y ago

"ending"

gesman 13y ago

If Clinton would say "I am considering ending relationship with Monica Lewinsky" - that would sound much less ridiculous ...

ameister14 13y ago

This is politics. In the short term, the politician gets a boost from being associated with this and the perception if his having influenced Obama. In the long term, even if nothing happens you won't remember his involvement because Obama is mentioned and has a much bigger name. It's well done, but it's just political posturing.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

I'd be surprised. Most people seem not to care. It doesn't strike me that there would be a political advantage. I don't think that Democrats would suddenly turn Republican since the Republicans are at least as bad on authoritarianism and spying. I'm getting the vibe that it may destroy world consumption of American electronics and software, but those birds have flown. I can't see us regaining any credibility on that issue any time soon. The only saving grace is the involvement of practically every other Western government. But, I would certainly welcome such a development.

x0054 13y ago

I'll believe it when there is a signed pardon for Snowden! So... Never.

gfodor 13y ago

Honestly the only way this will happen is as long as there is a Democrat in the White House. No, not because Democrats are better on privacy, but because the only thing Republicans love more than voting in draconian policies to fight "terror" is voting on anything that makes Obama look bad.

inzax 13y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. Oh wait, its top secret. I guess I'll never believe it or even trust the government on this matter.

gnosis 13y ago

There was an article on the BBC site recently about a spy program during WW2 that consisted of pampering high-ranking German POW's in a mansion while British agents listened in through bugging devices. Apparently, the program worked wonderfully, and they got a lot of useful intelligence out of it. However, word somehow got out that German prisoners there were being treated like royalty while the British public starved. There was outrage in Parliament, and Churchill ordered the program shut down. British intelligence pretended to follow Churchill's orders, but actually continued the program in secret. The information they were getting was just too useful. They just stopped telling Churchill about it. I expect something similar might happen here. To the public's knowledge, to most of Congress, and maybe even to Obama, the program might appear to be shut down. But it'll either continue wholesale or morph in to something else that's effectively the same (or even worse). Unfortunately, there really is no way to verify the words of these spy agencies. Virtually no one has the clearance to go inside their datacenters and check. Now they'll probably just be a lot more careful about keeping what they do secret. Remember that the NSA is far from the only secret agency in the US. For a long time its very existence was denied. The running joke in Washington was that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency". Eventually, its existence was confirmed. But there are probably dozens if not hundreds of other secret agencies that operate under the so-called "black budget" that Congress authorizes. Who knows what they do? Something like PRISM could easily migrate to one or more of them.

grovulent 13y ago
Very good point - but at least it won't be as easy for them to do it. These NSA activities require the co-operation and silence of a lot of different entities - and that would be much harder to obtain if they don't have legal standing. Plus - if you get caught going against the executive and the congress - you'll eventually lose your funding. Having said that - I tend to agree with the comments above suggesting that the executive will just rename it all and try and make the story go away while actually ramping up the program.
- gnosis 13y ago
  As far as funding goes, I heard an interesting program[1] recently on History Counts[2] which claimed that the CIA was covertly funding its own operations in Southeast Asia through drug trafficking.[3][4] In comparison, the wholesale spy program that's been in the news recently has far more potential for profit through economic espionage, blackmail, and various types of political manipulation. It could easily be self-financing if the information gathered through it was exploited. This program is a proverbial goose laying golden eggs for the government. I really can not imagine them closing it down over a bit of bad press (which will probably die down and blow over as soon as the next big scandal hits). [1] - http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027 http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027 [2] - http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts [3] - A small excerpt: Q: "Through the drug profits, were these operations essentially self-financing?" A: "Everything in the Far East was self-financing" Q: "And they were off the books, so there was no public record or accounting?" A: "Of course I'm speculating here, because no one has done me the favor of showing me the CIA's books, but I think when we get to the scale of a 35,000 man army in Laos in the 1960's -- Congress found out about that and held hearings in to it and were complaining they've never been told about it, so I assume all of that was financed by the drug traffic than it was -- whatever input there was from the CIA's legitimate budget was minimal compared to what was happening... that was built up continuously from the 1950's" [4] - I'm not saying I believe in this particular conspiracy theory. I've really not looked in to this subject beyond this one History Counts show. But I could see something like it happening, and the current mood is one where such conspiracy theories are starting to look more probable than usual.

sigzero 13y ago

Obama promised that when he was running for President. Sorry, I don't believe him.

D9u 13y ago

I'm nitpicking here, but I thought that Microsoft was based in Redmond, WA. (from the article) how Microsoft worked hand-in-hand with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to ensure that law enforcement could bypass encryption mechanisms and easily listen-in and watch conversations conducted over Silicon Valley giant’s Outlook.com chat portal and Skype messaging platform. I'm not from California (been there twice,) and I've lived in Washington state, but is Microsoft considered to be a "Silicon Valley giant?"

fortepianissimo 13y ago

This doesn't change anything as long as FISA is the same.

lucb1e 13y ago

Sure he is. After all this negative publicity, how could he not be saying that? Even seriously considering it or just doing it, even if it were just to save his own ass. It doesn't matter what impact on security it has really. Either surveillance is not important for national security, or it's beneficial for himself to stop it. It might be either of the two, we don't know.

joshuaheard 13y ago

Just like he promised in his 2008 campaign.

brudgers 13y ago

Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too. That ending surveillance requires consideration indicates the probable outcome at the end of that consideration. The historic precedent for an agency unfettered with regard to building dossiers on citizens is Hoover's FBI. His files included elected politicians. I suspect it is naive to suppose that there is not a big file on each member of the executive branch.

mpyne 13y ago
> Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too. Then he ran headlong into that Article I side of the government and had his ass handed back to him.

D9u 13y ago

What pisses me off is that the only reason any of the politicians are even considering the repeal of any domestic surveillance is because of "blowback." What about doing the right thing? What about our Bill of Rights? What about that fabled "Moral High Ground?"

medde 13y ago

Is that until the next whistle-blower shows up?

pvdm 13y ago

If you believe this then you believe in "hope" and "change".