6 ms·

Obama, tech executives met to discuss surveillance

40 points by moskie 13y ago

epistasis 13y ago
>"There was broad concern among privacy advocates and the private sector about the impact of the NSA's surveillance efforts. Several of the private sector representatives worried that the international backlash against NSA collection of foreign data would harm American global competitiveness," American Civil Liberties Union President Susan Herman said. This is very encouraging. Though I doubt that civil liberties groups have much pull on the White House or Congress, hopefully having all these large tech companies on board will add some pull to the message. Throw in "global economic competitiveness" and/or "jobs" and it can almost counteract the "terrorism" propaganda war.
- rhizome 13y ago
  My cynical sense is that we're halfway through 3Q13, the leaks have been out for a month and a half, so it's time to take these companies' temperature about whether their earnings have been affected. If not, "we still good, guys?" After all, "competitiveness" is a synonym for revenue.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  It never helped much for health care; I'm not betting the farm on it helping for surveillance. The people in charge already have theirs. They don't really care about America's global economic competitiveness because their buddies are as competitive as they need to be, and because they fantasize that if things get out of hand they'll just slam some small country up against the wall to show who's boss. Oh, you might be able to convince some of the public. But in the end, who cares what the public thinks? What, are they going to vote for the Presidential candidate who takes a position against secrecy or something? Because I've been down that road, friend.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I'm honestly surprised that no country has seen the massive opportunity to pull ahead here economically. Given the that the legal clusterfuck for tech companies continues to snowball, it is only a matter of time before more and more tech companies start asking themselves if the US is the right jurisdiction to set up shop. I would imagine that Lavabit and Silent Circle are having this conversation now. If I were in the congress or parliament of some progressive country, I'd start outlining a ton of bills on privacy, patents, etc. with the goal of creating an economic safe haven for many types of tech companies. Since software is eating the world, it seems like it would be one of the most attractive economic opportunities to develop. Iceland is the obvious choice for this, but I would hope that Germany would jump on this. On top of bills that support the economic environment for tech, I would add a ton of bills surrounding support for foreign nationals who want to move to the country to found and build such companies. Give software and hardware engineers a fast track to citizenship and a decent tax structure on gains from the companies they build, then give VCs decent tax benefits on their gains. This is as good an opportunity as any for some countries out there with a decent but still subordinate tech economy to take two steps forward.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
andyl 13y ago
Who in the room was the advocate for open internet? I don't want my future to look like the Apple Store or AT&T's closed network. I won't accept it.
- acgourley 13y ago
  First sentence mentions Vint Cerf. Founding father of the internet, recently wrote this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-...
  - andyl 13y ago
    What has Cerf had to say about NSA spying on Americans? Has he expressed outrage? Concern? No. As a public spokesman for Google, he has offered no solutions to increase the privacy protections for Americans. Rather, he seems to claim that privacy protections can't be done. (http://gigaom.com/2013/07/09/internet-inventor-no-technological-cure-for-privacy-ills/ http://gigaom.com/2013/07/09/internet-inventor-no-technologi...)
- mh- 13y ago
  the first sentence.. Google Inc computer scientist Vint Cerf and transparency advocates also participated in the meeting [..]
  - malandrew 13y ago
    I would hope that Tim Berners Lee, Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen would all be there. Even Stallman should be present, since he most often is right despite coming across as a madman to some, and because he drops the anchor so far in the direction of privacy that people like TBL and LL look like the rational moderates that they are in this conversation. Unfortunately the radicals in favor of the surveillance state already have the ear of the President and Congress in this conversation. The presence of Stallman would add a much needed balance. Who else does the HN community think should be present advocating on behalf of the free and open internet?
darkchasma 13y ago
I was certain that Bush Jr. was going to go down in history as the worst president in my lifetime. But if Obama doesn't straighten this out soon, it's going to be him. Which is very disappointing, because he showed so much promise before he was elected. But under his watch, whether directly or indirectly, he's created the least free regime of any president ever elected in the US.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  What if it turns out that each is worse than the last?
  - msandford 13y ago
    A bunch of libertarians are fond of saying that each president eventually makes you nostalgic for the last one. EDIT: It was actually Calvin Trillin, but I read it on a libertarian blog: http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/ http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-bla...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  To be fair, there's never been another presidency with the current combination of technological and societal factors on the scale there is today, so a direct comparison isn't easy to make.
  - spoiledtechie 13y ago
    We have had the tech ever since the internet was invented. Don't fool your self and try to find another way to defend our current sitting president.
    - iaskwhy 13y ago
dreamdu5t 13y ago
Are you people stupid? This is PR! It's so transparent.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  I'm downvoted, yet there's no evidence this meeting produced anything substantive, or was anything but a PR move by the president. Vague statements about "dialogue" regarding a secret meeting, and people actually take this seriously? It's ridiculous.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    I agree with you that it's probably PR, and that Obama isn't about to dismantle the whole NSA machinery that's been operating for years now under his administration. My guess is that you were downvoted for asking "Are you people stupid?", which is not a particularly civil way of addressing your fellow HN readers.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"...Herman added that despite such meetings, "It's not clear yet that the White House appreciates the need to scale back these surveillance programs substantially instead of just rationalizing or tinkering with them.".." I welcome any attention the president can give this issue. I also acknowledge as Commander in Chief it is his role to be publicly responsible for this mess. As Chief Executive, at any moment he can pick the phone up and make substantive things happen n this issue. Having said that, what we really need is legislative relief. Here's hoping we don't get a feel-good PR statment and posturing geared to divide the electorate instead of solving the problem. I have my fingers crossed.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
SmokyBorbon 13y ago
It's time to start calling them "collaborators".
- spoiledtechie 13y ago
  Wow, thats perfect....
petegrif 13y ago
Now that it's dawning on people that this is going to kill the US's international cloud computing business the big money lobbying will kick in and we'll probably see some action.
- grbalaffa 13y ago
  Don't worry, they will work it so that there is a very expensive and labyrinthine process for privacy "compliance" for companies operating in the US which will purely by coincidence be so expensive and convoluted that only the big companies will be able to afford it. Just to reiterate, this will be 100% accidental and will in no way reflect an intent on the part of the established players to create a de-facto barrier to entry for potential competitors. You know you can trust them because the meeting was behind closed doors and both they and the president refused to comment on it.
helloNSA_ 13y ago
Execs -> Obama "You said no one would find out about this shit if we played ball! WTF! We pay you assholes a lot of money!" Obama -> Execs "Relax, we have the NSA working on Lavabit to get Snowden's emails right now. As soon as we have some truth to mix in with our lies we'll have him discredited with false allegations of CP or some other horse shit. The pleebs' short memories and NFL football will take care of the rest." Execs -> Obama "It had better or the Secret Service will fall asleep on the job one day." Obama -> Execs "Cocaine and hookers on me!"
- pekk 13y ago
  Just make up any wild story you want, that's great.
dictum 13y ago
>Since the NSA's vast data-gathering programs were revealed in June, the president has repeatedly said he would encourage a national conversation on the need for U.S. surveillance while respecting people's right to privacy. Let me build a straw man of what I think will be the argument: "If you're against mass surveillance[1], your position isn't reasonable. We must protect our country. Protecting our country requires watching for people who want to do us harm. If you love America, you should let us protect the nation, and that requires the practices our agencies do. We guarantee data will be used only following the correct procedures and safeguards[2]. We cannot tell too much about the programs or the groups and individuals who want to harm us will use this knowledge to put those who serve the nation and all American citizens at risk." [1] Of course the term won't be "mass surveillance", but some Luntzian/Orwellian expression: "protecting our communications" [2] We will establish the procedures and safeguards.

40 points by moskie 13y ago

>"There was broad concern among privacy advocates and the private sector about the impact of the NSA's surveillance efforts. Several of the private sector representatives worried that the international backlash against NSA collection of foreign data would harm American global competitiveness," American Civil Liberties Union President Susan Herman said. This is very encouraging. Though I doubt that civil liberties groups have much pull on the White House or Congress, hopefully having all these large tech companies on board will add some pull to the message. Throw in "global economic competitiveness" and/or "jobs" and it can almost counteract the "terrorism" propaganda war.

rhizome 13y ago
My cynical sense is that we're halfway through 3Q13, the leaks have been out for a month and a half, so it's time to take these companies' temperature about whether their earnings have been affected. If not, "we still good, guys?" After all, "competitiveness" is a synonym for revenue.
Vivtek 13y ago
It never helped much for health care; I'm not betting the farm on it helping for surveillance. The people in charge already have theirs. They don't really care about America's global economic competitiveness because their buddies are as competitive as they need to be, and because they fantasize that if things get out of hand they'll just slam some small country up against the wall to show who's boss. Oh, you might be able to convince some of the public. But in the end, who cares what the public thinks? What, are they going to vote for the Presidential candidate who takes a position against secrecy or something? Because I've been down that road, friend.
malandrew 13y ago
I'm honestly surprised that no country has seen the massive opportunity to pull ahead here economically. Given the that the legal clusterfuck for tech companies continues to snowball, it is only a matter of time before more and more tech companies start asking themselves if the US is the right jurisdiction to set up shop. I would imagine that Lavabit and Silent Circle are having this conversation now. If I were in the congress or parliament of some progressive country, I'd start outlining a ton of bills on privacy, patents, etc. with the goal of creating an economic safe haven for many types of tech companies. Since software is eating the world, it seems like it would be one of the most attractive economic opportunities to develop. Iceland is the obvious choice for this, but I would hope that Germany would jump on this. On top of bills that support the economic environment for tech, I would add a ton of bills surrounding support for foreign nationals who want to move to the country to found and build such companies. Give software and hardware engineers a fast track to citizenship and a decent tax structure on gains from the companies they build, then give VCs decent tax benefits on their gains. This is as good an opportunity as any for some countries out there with a decent but still subordinate tech economy to take two steps forward.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

andyl 13y ago

Who in the room was the advocate for open internet? I don't want my future to look like the Apple Store or AT&T's closed network. I won't accept it.

acgourley 13y ago
First sentence mentions Vint Cerf. Founding father of the internet, recently wrote this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-...
- andyl 13y ago
  What has Cerf had to say about NSA spying on Americans? Has he expressed outrage? Concern? No. As a public spokesman for Google, he has offered no solutions to increase the privacy protections for Americans. Rather, he seems to claim that privacy protections can't be done. (http://gigaom.com/2013/07/09/internet-inventor-no-technological-cure-for-privacy-ills/ http://gigaom.com/2013/07/09/internet-inventor-no-technologi...)
mh- 13y ago
the first sentence.. Google Inc computer scientist Vint Cerf and transparency advocates also participated in the meeting [..]
- malandrew 13y ago
  I would hope that Tim Berners Lee, Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen would all be there. Even Stallman should be present, since he most often is right despite coming across as a madman to some, and because he drops the anchor so far in the direction of privacy that people like TBL and LL look like the rational moderates that they are in this conversation. Unfortunately the radicals in favor of the surveillance state already have the ear of the President and Congress in this conversation. The presence of Stallman would add a much needed balance. Who else does the HN community think should be present advocating on behalf of the free and open internet?

darkchasma 13y ago

I was certain that Bush Jr. was going to go down in history as the worst president in my lifetime. But if Obama doesn't straighten this out soon, it's going to be him. Which is very disappointing, because he showed so much promise before he was elected. But under his watch, whether directly or indirectly, he's created the least free regime of any president ever elected in the US.

newnewnew 13y ago
What if it turns out that each is worse than the last?
- msandford 13y ago
  A bunch of libertarians are fond of saying that each president eventually makes you nostalgic for the last one. EDIT: It was actually Calvin Trillin, but I read it on a libertarian blog: http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/ http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-bla...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
knowaveragejoe 13y ago
To be fair, there's never been another presidency with the current combination of technological and societal factors on the scale there is today, so a direct comparison isn't easy to make.
- spoiledtechie 13y ago
  We have had the tech ever since the internet was invented. Don't fool your self and try to find another way to defend our current sitting president.
  - iaskwhy 13y ago

dreamdu5t 13y ago

Are you people stupid? This is PR! It's so transparent.

dreamdu5t 13y ago
I'm downvoted, yet there's no evidence this meeting produced anything substantive, or was anything but a PR move by the president. Vague statements about "dialogue" regarding a secret meeting, and people actually take this seriously? It's ridiculous.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  I agree with you that it's probably PR, and that Obama isn't about to dismantle the whole NSA machinery that's been operating for years now under his administration. My guess is that you were downvoted for asking "Are you people stupid?", which is not a particularly civil way of addressing your fellow HN readers.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"...Herman added that despite such meetings, "It's not clear yet that the White House appreciates the need to scale back these surveillance programs substantially instead of just rationalizing or tinkering with them.".." I welcome any attention the president can give this issue. I also acknowledge as Commander in Chief it is his role to be publicly responsible for this mess. As Chief Executive, at any moment he can pick the phone up and make substantive things happen n this issue. Having said that, what we really need is legislative relief. Here's hoping we don't get a feel-good PR statment and posturing geared to divide the electorate instead of solving the problem. I have my fingers crossed.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

SmokyBorbon 13y ago

It's time to start calling them "collaborators".

spoiledtechie 13y ago
Wow, thats perfect....

petegrif 13y ago

Now that it's dawning on people that this is going to kill the US's international cloud computing business the big money lobbying will kick in and we'll probably see some action.

grbalaffa 13y ago
Don't worry, they will work it so that there is a very expensive and labyrinthine process for privacy "compliance" for companies operating in the US which will purely by coincidence be so expensive and convoluted that only the big companies will be able to afford it. Just to reiterate, this will be 100% accidental and will in no way reflect an intent on the part of the established players to create a de-facto barrier to entry for potential competitors. You know you can trust them because the meeting was behind closed doors and both they and the president refused to comment on it.

helloNSA_ 13y ago

Execs -> Obama "You said no one would find out about this shit if we played ball! WTF! We pay you assholes a lot of money!" Obama -> Execs "Relax, we have the NSA working on Lavabit to get Snowden's emails right now. As soon as we have some truth to mix in with our lies we'll have him discredited with false allegations of CP or some other horse shit. The pleebs' short memories and NFL football will take care of the rest." Execs -> Obama "It had better or the Secret Service will fall asleep on the job one day." Obama -> Execs "Cocaine and hookers on me!"

pekk 13y ago
Just make up any wild story you want, that's great.

dictum 13y ago

>Since the NSA's vast data-gathering programs were revealed in June, the president has repeatedly said he would encourage a national conversation on the need for U.S. surveillance while respecting people's right to privacy. Let me build a straw man of what I think will be the argument: "If you're against mass surveillance[1], your position isn't reasonable. We must protect our country. Protecting our country requires watching for people who want to do us harm. If you love America, you should let us protect the nation, and that requires the practices our agencies do. We guarantee data will be used only following the correct procedures and safeguards[2]. We cannot tell too much about the programs or the groups and individuals who want to harm us will use this knowledge to put those who serve the nation and all American citizens at risk." [1] Of course the term won't be "mass surveillance", but some Luntzian/Orwellian expression: "protecting our communications" [2] We will establish the procedures and safeguards.