7 ms·

I find it hilarious that the Obama White House doesn't seem to be taking the tech companies' position seriously. In fact, the White Houses's almost complete non

by Kapura 13y ago

I find it hilarious that the Obama White House doesn't seem to be taking the tech companies' position seriously. In fact, the White Houses's almost complete non-response to the NSA revelations has damaged their credibility in my mind much moreso than the Healthcare.gov debacle. Me and other tech-industry-type people I talk to understand why code projects fail and break, so, while we shake our heads at the poor management and deployment of this website, we "get it." It doesn't really concern us. This Snowden thing is really getting out of hand, though. I initially was anti-Snowden when the first leaks came out; I was unconcerned that the government might be storing metadata. But I am certain that the NSA has been lying about the scope of their collection and it's legality. As more documents leak, I become increasingly concerned with the apparently blank cheque for surveillance that the NSA has been issued. It has personally shaken my trust not only in specific channels of communication, but the entire internet in general. It's troubling the steps one must now go through to have a semblance of secure communication: I have trouble trusting ANY software for security because I have no idea what the NSA is allowed to do (I suspect its almost anything if it's en masse). The one percent doctrine is the scariest thing to come out of the Bush White House, which wasn't exactly a beacon of freedom. The wheels of law and government turn slowly, which is, generally, a good thing, but I believe that the gov'ts policies regarding information collection need to be addressed ASAP. They're hurting the United States' already shaky foreign credibility, and they're hurting American companies' interests as well. Somebody needs to light a fire under Congress's or the White House's seat to get the ball rolling. Judge Leon's ruling is a good step, but I'm disappointed and ashamed that the first president I cast a ballot towards is stonewalling on such an important issue.

forgottenpass 13y ago
I find it hilarious that the Obama White House doesn't seem to be taking the tech companies' position seriously. They're lobbying because the government surveillance revelations hurt their business model, not on principle. Even I'm having a hard time taking their positions seriously. I mean, they're right, I'm fine with the means they're lobby for change and I share their desired ends. But in light of their motivations I don't take them seriously.
- ihsw 13y ago
  One of the key points in their push for new legislation is establishing a universal framework for handling cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts -- one in particular is Google being indicted in the UK on privacy violations and them subsequently requesting to move the avenue of debate to an American court. These kinds of legal uncertainties are troublesome for large multinational corporations, especially with regards to patents and whatnot. They're piggy-backing on the surveillance issue to push their idea of universal jurisdiction, a concept unheard of until WWII during the Nuremburg trials where German war criminals were charged with violating American laws even though they weren't Americans, the victims weren't Americans, and the crimes hadn't occurred on American soil. The very basis of state sovereignty is being challenged. "Because it hurts their business model" simplifies things a bit too much.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - magicalist 13y ago
    This is completely made up legal theory. Please don't push it as anything approaching truth. Not only is Google not being "indicted" (it's a civil suit), it has nothing to do with NSA reform (it's about the Safari third-party cookies workaround), and jurisdictional challenges, even wrong ones, are as old as the hills.
    - w_t_payne 13y ago
      Matters of jurisdiction in international law are a pretty hot topic at the moment -- have been for a few years, and will probably continue to be for the next decade or two.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        Matters of jurisdiction in international law They are as old as questions of sovereignty, that's why it s a problem and not only likely to be remedied soon.
salient 13y ago
Too bad this didn't happen before the elections happened. Not that I wanted Romney to win, but at the very least it would've forced the Democratic party to offer some candidates, too, and with any luck, actual changes to NSA spying would've arrived earlier, if it would've been a major issue during the campaign, when everyone is watching the debates. But now we have to put up with Obama's dismissal, since he doesn't have much to lose himself, short of impeachment (which I think is warranted, especially if the Supreme Court ends up declaring the mass spying unconstitutional).
- Kapura 13y ago
  I, too, kind of wish that these revelations had taken place before the elections. Not that politicians promises mean anything, but a positive rhetoric is often the first step towards positive change. I don't think that Obama should be impeached over this, though. These spying programs were started under the Bush White House, for one, and beyond that I don't think that impeachment is an appropriate response to this issue. The constant looming threat of privacy breaches is not something that can be corrected by assigning blame. Rather, we need broad laws to protect American citizens and corporations from being treated as potential terrorists.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent? I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if the party would do so. I think had they, it would guarantee a failed election.
  - Kapura 13y ago
    Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Party's support in his 2006 senatorial race by not being a Democrat. He ran as an independent and won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...
  - jaredsohn 13y ago
    It has happened four times (Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur), but three of them weren't elected president in the first place (got there via deaths) and all of them happened before party primaries were decided by voters. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lost_the_nomination_to_run_for_a_second_term http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lo...
joering2 13y ago
> But I am certain that the NSA has been lying about the scope of their collection and it's legality. IF they are in bed with President and DOJ, if they are continuously doing favors to NSA, FBI, CIA and other three-letter agencies + black ops, then who is there to enforce some hundred years old document titled "we the people". Further, even Obama himself was directly blackmailed by NSA. As you remember after Snowden revelations first thing before even denying or confirming his revelation, was that they remember getting request to spy on Obama. Since he has so much trouble with his own past, no wonder Obama will do whetever NSA wants. Russell Tice, has said that he was aware while at the NSA, that the agency, back in 2004, was spying on Barack Obama, then just a Democratic Senate candidate from Chicago. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/is-nsa-spying-really-about-blackmail/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/is-nsa-spying-really-... I also find this news disgusting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230832/-Obama-appoints-James-Clapper-to-oversee-independent-NSA-review http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230832/-Obama-appo...
lnanek2 13y ago
Traditionally it would be the Republicans who would help big business like this, wouldn't it? Democrats are more in bed with Hollywood. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't going to cross the NSA.
- algebr 13y ago
  Maybe your stereotypes don't help all that much. The guy who filed the suit against the NSA, aka the one that was recently vindicated, was filed by a Republican.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
growupkids 13y ago
Most transparent administration ever. We can see right thru them.
rajacombinator 13y ago
Why should they take anyone seriously? These articles and meetings are a nice bit of mutually beneficial PR fluffery but neither parties to these so called meetings cares. And why should they? The only thing a govt has to fear is its people. As usual, the people are not to be feared, hence they get the govt they deserve.
neilxdsouza 13y ago
I am pretty confident that when the presidential candidate is selected, he is already being manipulated by the financial houses. They make sure that the president is weak pawn who can be easily manipulated. I am also sure that this has been the case for a while especially after JFK. The reason that Obama is doing nothing, is because he is actually powerless to do anything - just a little puppet on a chain. To understand the underlying trend have a look at the last few presidents - and take a look at the financial laws that were repealed over time (like the glass steagal act). One of the weaknesses in the US system is that the presidential post has so much power concentrated in it. Once you are able to get a stranglehold around this position, you can manipulate this from behind the scenes and no one will ever suspect that something is wrong.

by Kapura 13y ago

forgottenpass 13y ago

I find it hilarious that the Obama White House doesn't seem to be taking the tech companies' position seriously. They're lobbying because the government surveillance revelations hurt their business model, not on principle. Even I'm having a hard time taking their positions seriously. I mean, they're right, I'm fine with the means they're lobby for change and I share their desired ends. But in light of their motivations I don't take them seriously.

ihsw 13y ago
One of the key points in their push for new legislation is establishing a universal framework for handling cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts -- one in particular is Google being indicted in the UK on privacy violations and them subsequently requesting to move the avenue of debate to an American court. These kinds of legal uncertainties are troublesome for large multinational corporations, especially with regards to patents and whatnot. They're piggy-backing on the surveillance issue to push their idea of universal jurisdiction, a concept unheard of until WWII during the Nuremburg trials where German war criminals were charged with violating American laws even though they weren't Americans, the victims weren't Americans, and the crimes hadn't occurred on American soil. The very basis of state sovereignty is being challenged. "Because it hurts their business model" simplifies things a bit too much.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- magicalist 13y ago
  This is completely made up legal theory. Please don't push it as anything approaching truth. Not only is Google not being "indicted" (it's a civil suit), it has nothing to do with NSA reform (it's about the Safari third-party cookies workaround), and jurisdictional challenges, even wrong ones, are as old as the hills.
  - w_t_payne 13y ago
    Matters of jurisdiction in international law are a pretty hot topic at the moment -- have been for a few years, and will probably continue to be for the next decade or two.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Matters of jurisdiction in international law They are as old as questions of sovereignty, that's why it s a problem and not only likely to be remedied soon.

salient 13y ago

Too bad this didn't happen before the elections happened. Not that I wanted Romney to win, but at the very least it would've forced the Democratic party to offer some candidates, too, and with any luck, actual changes to NSA spying would've arrived earlier, if it would've been a major issue during the campaign, when everyone is watching the debates. But now we have to put up with Obama's dismissal, since he doesn't have much to lose himself, short of impeachment (which I think is warranted, especially if the Supreme Court ends up declaring the mass spying unconstitutional).

Kapura 13y ago
I, too, kind of wish that these revelations had taken place before the elections. Not that politicians promises mean anything, but a positive rhetoric is often the first step towards positive change. I don't think that Obama should be impeached over this, though. These spying programs were started under the Bush White House, for one, and beyond that I don't think that impeachment is an appropriate response to this issue. The constant looming threat of privacy breaches is not something that can be corrected by assigning blame. Rather, we need broad laws to protect American citizens and corporations from being treated as potential terrorists.
bmelton 13y ago
Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent? I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if the party would do so. I think had they, it would guarantee a failed election.
- Kapura 13y ago
  Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Party's support in his 2006 senatorial race by not being a Democrat. He ran as an independent and won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...
- jaredsohn 13y ago
  It has happened four times (Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur), but three of them weren't elected president in the first place (got there via deaths) and all of them happened before party primaries were decided by voters. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lost_the_nomination_to_run_for_a_second_term http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lo...

joering2 13y ago

> But I am certain that the NSA has been lying about the scope of their collection and it's legality. IF they are in bed with President and DOJ, if they are continuously doing favors to NSA, FBI, CIA and other three-letter agencies + black ops, then who is there to enforce some hundred years old document titled "we the people". Further, even Obama himself was directly blackmailed by NSA. As you remember after Snowden revelations first thing before even denying or confirming his revelation, was that they remember getting request to spy on Obama. Since he has so much trouble with his own past, no wonder Obama will do whetever NSA wants. Russell Tice, has said that he was aware while at the NSA, that the agency, back in 2004, was spying on Barack Obama, then just a Democratic Senate candidate from Chicago. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/is-nsa-spying-really-about-blackmail/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/is-nsa-spying-really-... I also find this news disgusting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230832/-Obama-appoints-James-Clapper-to-oversee-independent-NSA-review http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230832/-Obama-appo...

lnanek2 13y ago

Traditionally it would be the Republicans who would help big business like this, wouldn't it? Democrats are more in bed with Hollywood. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't going to cross the NSA.

algebr 13y ago
Maybe your stereotypes don't help all that much. The guy who filed the suit against the NSA, aka the one that was recently vindicated, was filed by a Republican.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

growupkids 13y ago

Most transparent administration ever. We can see right thru them.

rajacombinator 13y ago

Why should they take anyone seriously? These articles and meetings are a nice bit of mutually beneficial PR fluffery but neither parties to these so called meetings cares. And why should they? The only thing a govt has to fear is its people. As usual, the people are not to be feared, hence they get the govt they deserve.

neilxdsouza 13y ago

I am pretty confident that when the presidential candidate is selected, he is already being manipulated by the financial houses. They make sure that the president is weak pawn who can be easily manipulated. I am also sure that this has been the case for a while especially after JFK. The reason that Obama is doing nothing, is because he is actually powerless to do anything - just a little puppet on a chain. To understand the underlying trend have a look at the last few presidents - and take a look at the financial laws that were repealed over time (like the glass steagal act). One of the weaknesses in the US system is that the presidential post has so much power concentrated in it. Once you are able to get a stranglehold around this position, you can manipulate this from behind the scenes and no one will ever suspect that something is wrong.