3 ms·

Obama Announces Website For NSA Transparency, 3 More Reforms

36 points by shakes 13y ago

magicarp 13y ago
I don't want transparency into the NSA, I want no NSA. They've lied to us before on what they collect, why should we trust a PR site they put up?
josh2600 13y ago
I'm hopeful this will mean real reform, but if the previous years of Obama's presidency are indicative of the future, it's unlikely this represents material change. Then again, if we all believed the pass foretold the future we probably wouldn't be building startups, would we? Cheers to a better tomorrow.
joejohnson 13y ago
Oh good, a website and an independent oversight agency. That should accomplish nothing. These programs (section 215 of the Patriot Act, etc.) are intrinsically illegal; we cannot reform them. Who will oversee the oversight agency? Obama's proposal is complete bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3...
johngalt 13y ago
How can we fix a government program that has overstepped it's bounds? Lets add a monitoring agency to monitor the monitoring agency!
ctdonath 13y ago
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- hga 13y ago
  Cute, but I'm afraid that's from "'a charter of negative liberties,' which 'says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf'" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/w...).
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    I reject the notion of "positive liberties" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong.
IanDrake 13y ago
So we get an "advocate": Advocate: "This violates the 4th amendment of every citizen in the US." Gov: "Bob, we know, now shut up and go stand in the corner. And remember, you can't tell anyone how these proceedings went."
dboyd 13y ago
> Create a public advocate to argue in front of the secret court... If your 'court' needs a public advocate, then the lack of a public advocate is not the problem. The idea of a "secret court" is contradictory to the idea of "a court." > Create a website detailing what the NSA does–and does not–collect on Americans and foreigners Why not just make the 'secret' court not secret?

36 points by shakes 13y ago

I don't want transparency into the NSA, I want no NSA. They've lied to us before on what they collect, why should we trust a PR site they put up?

josh2600 13y ago

I'm hopeful this will mean real reform, but if the previous years of Obama's presidency are indicative of the future, it's unlikely this represents material change. Then again, if we all believed the pass foretold the future we probably wouldn't be building startups, would we? Cheers to a better tomorrow.

joejohnson 13y ago

Oh good, a website and an independent oversight agency. That should accomplish nothing. These programs (section 215 of the Patriot Act, etc.) are intrinsically illegal; we cannot reform them. Who will oversee the oversight agency? Obama's proposal is complete bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3...

johngalt 13y ago

How can we fix a government program that has overstepped it's bounds? Lets add a monitoring agency to monitor the monitoring agency!

ctdonath 13y ago

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

hga 13y ago
Cute, but I'm afraid that's from "'a charter of negative liberties,' which 'says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf'" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/w...).
- ctdonath 13y ago
  I reject the notion of "positive liberties" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong.

IanDrake 13y ago

So we get an "advocate": Advocate: "This violates the 4th amendment of every citizen in the US." Gov: "Bob, we know, now shut up and go stand in the corner. And remember, you can't tell anyone how these proceedings went."

dboyd 13y ago

> Create a public advocate to argue in front of the secret court... If your 'court' needs a public advocate, then the lack of a public advocate is not the problem. The idea of a "secret court" is contradictory to the idea of "a court." > Create a website detailing what the NSA does–and does not–collect on Americans and foreigners Why not just make the 'secret' court not secret?