7 ms·

Pres. Obama Remarks on Intelligence Programs [video]

102 points by sinak 13y ago

iconjack 13y ago
I know he has America's best interest at heart because of all the flags. Had he just had one or two flags, I would have been skeptical. But five! And they are large ones too. Plus a lapel pin for good measure.
bicknergseng 13y ago
I wonder if we will ever have a historical perspective capable of comparing the current NSA/CIA/FBI with the likes of the Dulles brothers and J Edgar Hoover.
tomelders 13y ago
Without a pardon for Snowden, there is no discussion.
- angersock 13y ago
  That would be a pointless and empty gesture, likely wouldn't help Snowden, and would only serve to make the bastards look less slimy.
ch4s3 13y ago
I'm not sure I get what he's proposing to change. It sounds like he intends to limit the length of time that data is held, stop spying on friendly foreign leaders, and appoint a few people to new oversight positions. It just sounds a bit empty.
- jljljl 13y ago
  I'm not sure exactly how its going to play out, but the move to limit bulk collection of phone data, keeping the data in the hands of the phone companies or an independent third party, and requiring a justification and approval from a court before the NSA can access the data sounds like a non trivial reform. This limits the NSA's ability to just suck up everyone's data and then determine a justification after the fact.
higherpurpose 13y ago
What upset me most about his speech is him conflating the issues of protection against terrorists and protection against cyber-attacks, implying that they are basically the same, and that the NSA is just as useful for both. I won't discuss the fact that 12 years of surveillance have led to no results on stopping any terrorist plots, as the NSA has already admitted, but the NSA has actually made cyberattacks more likely because they are undermining the security of everything, including US infrastructure. As Schneier says, it's not a question of whether we allow the NSA to spy on everyone or not. It's a question of whether we allow every attacker to spy or attack our networks - or we try to make everything more secure by default. So when president Obama implies that NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems, he's choosing the former, rather than the latter. He's making cyberattacks more likely, not less. The way you defend against cyberattacks is by increasing security, not by increasing your offense capabilities. If they really cared about the security of US infrastructure, they'd divulge the vulnerabilities they found or bought from the black market that exploit the security of these systems, so those systems can be fixed, and no one else can exploit them with these exploits. Instead they keep them for themselves so they can exploit them. That's not just wrong. It's incredibly dangerous and reckless, especially from an agency that supposedly wants to "protect us".
- pekk 13y ago
  He didn't conflate terrorism and cyber-attacks, he only said that we need the capability to stop these. He certainly never implied that "NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems." Are you arguing that the US should be the only large country without intelligence or counter-intelligence programs?
  - 97d7de9817f 13y ago
    And you seem to be conflating dragnet surveillance with intelligence/counter-intelligence programs. Obama stated in this speech that the purpose of this type of surveillance isn't to spy on potentially hostile nations, but to spy on individuals or small networks of individuals. Torture is another great way of ousting terrorist plots which other nations incorporate into their intelligence gathering process. We choose not to do this because it is unethical and has too much potential for abuse. I see no reason to think that this same logic shouldn't be applied to the dragnet surveillance of the entire planet.
MisterWebz 13y ago
It's obvious he's not really taking this seriously. These are empty promises with only one goal, and that's restoring the public's trust without hampering the NSA's abilities too much (if at all). EDIT: After having very quickly skimmed the PPD, here's something interesting: The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners an d allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially. Bascially what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want. Good luck trying to stop an agency operating in total secrecy from abusing these powers.
- psbp 13y ago
  Don't have the transcript but to paraphrase the bit about NSA reform it was basically "We can set up a shell operation to do all the dirty work, we can't guarantee that it won't be even dirtier and less under congressional control, but we can definitely do that if you want us to"
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Does that mean we can sue the company and the individuals involved, for tresspassing and vandalizing equipment to enable sigint for internal corporate data? Will they be subject to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the same as everyone else? Can we catch and prosecute individuals participating in operations that involve crimes (vandalism/b&e/sabotage) by enabling sigint on corporations' servers and networking equipment? And if such individuals are armed during an occasional physical incursion into corporate infrastructure, can they be shot in self defense? More fundamentally, let's follow the money. Who is going to fund this corporation? If they take money from the USG, money which is then paid to corporations to persuade those corporations to give up personal data or allow network taps and collocated spying equipment, that is no different from the current situation.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I think people forgot that the original reason there was a FISC order to turn over the phone records was because the telecom companies had already been doing it, and were quite happy to cooperate. But they felt there would be recrimination if the fact that it was voluntary on their part came out and so requested to be ordered to do so (if that makes sense). But you're right, at best there will be a third-party private company setup to hold the records and act as an "independent" review of the request, since none of the telecoms want to maintain the records themselves, since now that it's public it would risk discovery motions in every random case until the end of time. And now that we would have an "independent" third party watching the NSA, who watches the watchers? At least NSA analysts are trained from Day 0 about the Constitution, USSID 18, FISA, etc. Who monitors the shell company to verify that they're not doing evil things with the database? Perhaps we could have FBI constantly monitor their comms and at least spread the risk around.
nostromo 13y ago
Did you know the Patriot Act sunsets next year, 2015? Let's hope that Snowden has drummed up enough opposition to prevent it from being extended again.
- srl 13y ago
  It will be extended, of course -- it's a cornerstone of our security establishment at this point. The more realistic thing is to hope for good amendments.
- RALaBarge 13y ago
  If only the will of the people was a deciding factor in the vote...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided... ("Among those who heard at least a lot or some about the Patriot Act, 49% see it as a necessary tool while 41% say it goes too far.").
    - RALaBarge 13y ago
      Ahh, my faith in humanity shattered yet again! =)
    - nostromo 13y ago
      That was pre-Snowden though. The polls have moved a fair amount since then. Actually, even before Snowden things were moving. For example: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/01/top5.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/01/top5.pdf (Do you support) expanded government monitoring of cell phones and email, to intercept communications? 2001: 54 favor, 41 oppose 2006: 52 favor, 46 oppose 2013: 38 favor, 59 oppose
      - rayiner 13y ago
eric_cc 13y ago
Call me crazy but I think we'll see the end of war, famine, and disease before we see the end of spying and surveillance.
- srl 13y ago
  Asking for it to end is unrealistic. Asking for reasonable limits, and for public knowledge of the general outlines of what is being collected and how it is used, and for proper oversight by the intelligence committees, is much more achievable.
sinak 13y ago
Read the Presidential Policy Directive PPD-28 on Signals Intelligence activities with details on the reforms here: http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf
001sky 13y ago
Live commentary also here http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/live-coverage-of-obamas-n-s-a-speech/#proposals-do-not-address-criticism-of-cyber-programs http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/live-coverage-...
- swombat 13y ago
  All of it so far is empty and pointless doublespeak. For example: > President Obama is announcing that he wants to end the National Security Agency’s bulk call records program as it currently exists. Why, of course, "as it currently exists" it has a lot of problems. I'm sure the current version can be "ended" and a much more insidious version can be designed. As of the 11:47 update there is nothing of note in there.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    Certainly, "as it currently exists" it is known to the public. The new program will be far more secretive.
- dictum 13y ago
  > Mr. Obama started off by saying the government could not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating foreign networks — and protecting against them. By the logic that arrives to this conclusion, the government can not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating domestic networks either.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    To an approximate degree, yes, except that penetration of domestic networks would not be necessary, merely the normal legal processes from CALEA, MOUs with telecom companies, etc. The government already does this kind of stuff, only through the FBI instead of the NSA. You would "penetrate" a foreign network when there is no ability to expect cooperation and no ability to compel.
netcraft 13y ago
The President is still speaking so I don't know what he is going to announce, but as an american, I don't like the concept of citizens and non-citizens being treated differently when it comes to their rights. The distinction is difficult to make anyway, but the declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and does not make a distinction - I don't think we should be able to spy on someone in another country without a warrant any more than we can spy on citizen.
- philwelch 13y ago
  It's not a question of rights. Every country engages in foreign espionage and treats foreign espionage as a different category of activity from domestic espionage. Things are slightly different when you're spying on private citizens rather than just foreign governments, but then again the whole point of terrorism is that it involves private citizens instead of governments.
  - zorked 13y ago
    Are "foreign espionage" and "mass surveillance" the same thing? I am more willing to accept the former as unfortunately unavoidable than the latter.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      That's the real question, and the distinction is that mass surveillance doesn't distinguish between legitimate foreign targets and everyone else.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    That doesn't really answer why it's not a question of rights. Everyone else doing it is not really a valid argument that counters rights.
    - philwelch 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rjzzleep 13y ago
so am i getting it right? nothing is going to change. everything stays the same. "we'll think about alternatives" "we have unique capabilities to protect our friends" "as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us ...." "as a nation that has faced totalitarianism the world expects us ... " "the readiness of certain individuals to expect the worst of our readiness to protect the world(not fully correct quote) can be frustrating" haha wtf dude. this is more of a justification than a change notification. we'll make sure the data we collect is better accepted by you people
- pekk 13y ago
  It's almost as if you only heard the end of the speech - and the parts of the speech you wanted to hear. Whether you think the proposed reforms are enough is up to you, but they certainly extend beyond "think about alternatives".
  - rjzzleep 13y ago
    yes, let me quote something for you > The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the > national security of the United States or its partners and allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence > or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage can you tell me where the change is? The document reads more of a "hey trust me, we're really the good guys" http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf care to explain where the real change is? EDIT: since i can't reply. it's all about thinking and discussing if dissemination and retention makes sense. and reducing people that have access to it. and we may put a special person in charge to take care of these things. but that doesn't mean at&t will suddenly stop feeding data into nsa data centers.
    - srl 13y ago
      Section 4 has the real changes.
- pmtarantino 13y ago
aeonsky 13y ago
Sham. Nothing is going to change.
- pekk 13y ago
  Here is the response that HN was going to have regardless of the contents of the speech (or any realistic proposal which might have occurred). It's about wanting to be angry and see punishments more than achieving anything specific
  - AmVess 13y ago
    Perhaps is it reasonable cynicism informed by experience.
higherpurpose 13y ago
A summary of his proposals for those who didn't see it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/09011025919/president-obama-surpasses-exceptionally-low-expectations-nsa-reforms-leaves-much-place.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/09011025919/presid...
ck2 13y ago
Am I mistaken or did he completely discard all the recommendations by the security panel he appointed to give him recommendations?
kyleblarson 13y ago
"If you like your privacy, you can keep it."
dj-wonk 13y ago
To comment on just one part: "Obama said he's ordered a plan to be drafted that would shift that data to some other entity." (From http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263357572/coming-up-obama-outlines-nsa-changes http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263357572/com...) In some sense, who collects, stores, and accesses the data is important. But it seems more important to look at the culture, rules, and oversight in place. Asking anyone to design such a system is daunting. Let's say, for the point of argument, that specific, limited, legal, accountable collection is the primary goal and we could design a new system to accomplish that. What are some of the best designs of security protocols and entity structures to protect this information? How far can you get with correct system administration policy? I suspect you need quite a bit beyond currently available tools.
andeh89 13y ago
Like most of you here I'm skeptical and disappointed, but what I'm most sick of is their campaign to paint Snowden as a traitor and enemy of the people. An enemy of the government (especially one this corrupt and over-reaching) is not always an enemy of the people, and I hope history remembers Snowden as the brave individual who shone a light on this travesty and forced them into this discussion.
- mpyne 13y ago
  He may not be the "enemy of the people", but is his the enemy of the government. Being for the people doesn't always make you right either, Robespierre believed strong in the Revolution but he and his fellow Jacobins of The Mountain were responsible for the "Reign of Terror" intended to root out counter-revolutionary sentiment "for the good of the people". As only one example, a woman was guillotined for exclaiming "a fig to the nation!". So let's not pretend that being for the people automatically makes all of your subsequent actions right or moral. On the other hand, the USG is the one entity chartered by "We the People of the United States", which makes me always at least initially suspicious of people whose plan is to hurt the government (which must almost invariably hurt the people, as long as the government stands). But independent of whether Snowden is fighting the people or the government, the bigger question is whether his actions have hurt the people. In many cases they have. Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people. Nor does leaking details about "targeted access operations" (which, since they must be targeted, cannot be used for mass surveillance essentially by definition). I could go on and on, but the point is simply that Snowden has indeed thrown a few bones with civil liberty implications. But that's not all that he has leaked, and given that he claimed from the beginning that he was very careful in what he selected, it is proper to hold him accountable for his actions, insofar as they do end up being against the American people.
  - dictum 13y ago
    > Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people. Let me ask a facetious question: does spying on Petrobras help prevent terrorism in the US?
wavesounds 13y ago
"Regardless of how we got there though the task before us now is greater then simply repariing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding our civil liberties and privacy protections our constitution requires." Regardless of how we got here? It’s Martin Luther King day on Monday. A day named after the person that got us as a country to make ‘important decisions’ about how to ‘sustain our leadership in the world’ and ‘uphold our civil liberties’. Mr. President we don’t disregard the individuals that make us examine our weaknesses in order to make our country better, we embrace them as heroes, even if that self reflection is uncomfortable and difficult at the time.
harshreality 13y ago
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975
sneak 13y ago
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Eisenhower, today in 1961. It was nice while it lasted, guys.
kartikkumar 13y ago
That really was single-handedly THE most boring, uninspiring speech in his entire time in office. There was nothing of substance to it and a real sense that he's not willing to fully accept the mistakes that have been made. His general nonchalance towards issues of privacy is astounding and will go a long way towards shaping how his second term in office is recounted in history books: not good!

102 points by sinak 13y ago

I know he has America's best interest at heart because of all the flags. Had he just had one or two flags, I would have been skeptical. But five! And they are large ones too. Plus a lapel pin for good measure.

bicknergseng 13y ago

I wonder if we will ever have a historical perspective capable of comparing the current NSA/CIA/FBI with the likes of the Dulles brothers and J Edgar Hoover.

tomelders 13y ago

Without a pardon for Snowden, there is no discussion.

angersock 13y ago
That would be a pointless and empty gesture, likely wouldn't help Snowden, and would only serve to make the bastards look less slimy.

ch4s3 13y ago

I'm not sure I get what he's proposing to change. It sounds like he intends to limit the length of time that data is held, stop spying on friendly foreign leaders, and appoint a few people to new oversight positions. It just sounds a bit empty.

jljljl 13y ago
I'm not sure exactly how its going to play out, but the move to limit bulk collection of phone data, keeping the data in the hands of the phone companies or an independent third party, and requiring a justification and approval from a court before the NSA can access the data sounds like a non trivial reform. This limits the NSA's ability to just suck up everyone's data and then determine a justification after the fact.

higherpurpose 13y ago

What upset me most about his speech is him conflating the issues of protection against terrorists and protection against cyber-attacks, implying that they are basically the same, and that the NSA is just as useful for both. I won't discuss the fact that 12 years of surveillance have led to no results on stopping any terrorist plots, as the NSA has already admitted, but the NSA has actually made cyberattacks more likely because they are undermining the security of everything, including US infrastructure. As Schneier says, it's not a question of whether we allow the NSA to spy on everyone or not. It's a question of whether we allow every attacker to spy or attack our networks - or we try to make everything more secure by default. So when president Obama implies that NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems, he's choosing the former, rather than the latter. He's making cyberattacks more likely, not less. The way you defend against cyberattacks is by increasing security, not by increasing your offense capabilities. If they really cared about the security of US infrastructure, they'd divulge the vulnerabilities they found or bought from the black market that exploit the security of these systems, so those systems can be fixed, and no one else can exploit them with these exploits. Instead they keep them for themselves so they can exploit them. That's not just wrong. It's incredibly dangerous and reckless, especially from an agency that supposedly wants to "protect us".

pekk 13y ago
He didn't conflate terrorism and cyber-attacks, he only said that we need the capability to stop these. He certainly never implied that "NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems." Are you arguing that the US should be the only large country without intelligence or counter-intelligence programs?
- 97d7de9817f 13y ago
  And you seem to be conflating dragnet surveillance with intelligence/counter-intelligence programs. Obama stated in this speech that the purpose of this type of surveillance isn't to spy on potentially hostile nations, but to spy on individuals or small networks of individuals. Torture is another great way of ousting terrorist plots which other nations incorporate into their intelligence gathering process. We choose not to do this because it is unethical and has too much potential for abuse. I see no reason to think that this same logic shouldn't be applied to the dragnet surveillance of the entire planet.

MisterWebz 13y ago

It's obvious he's not really taking this seriously. These are empty promises with only one goal, and that's restoring the public's trust without hampering the NSA's abilities too much (if at all). EDIT: After having very quickly skimmed the PPD, here's something interesting: The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners an d allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially. Bascially what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want. Good luck trying to stop an agency operating in total secrecy from abusing these powers.

psbp 13y ago
Don't have the transcript but to paraphrase the bit about NSA reform it was basically "We can set up a shell operation to do all the dirty work, we can't guarantee that it won't be even dirtier and less under congressional control, but we can definitely do that if you want us to"
- harshreality 13y ago
  Does that mean we can sue the company and the individuals involved, for tresspassing and vandalizing equipment to enable sigint for internal corporate data? Will they be subject to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the same as everyone else? Can we catch and prosecute individuals participating in operations that involve crimes (vandalism/b&e/sabotage) by enabling sigint on corporations' servers and networking equipment? And if such individuals are armed during an occasional physical incursion into corporate infrastructure, can they be shot in self defense? More fundamentally, let's follow the money. Who is going to fund this corporation? If they take money from the USG, money which is then paid to corporations to persuade those corporations to give up personal data or allow network taps and collocated spying equipment, that is no different from the current situation.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I think people forgot that the original reason there was a FISC order to turn over the phone records was because the telecom companies had already been doing it, and were quite happy to cooperate. But they felt there would be recrimination if the fact that it was voluntary on their part came out and so requested to be ordered to do so (if that makes sense). But you're right, at best there will be a third-party private company setup to hold the records and act as an "independent" review of the request, since none of the telecoms want to maintain the records themselves, since now that it's public it would risk discovery motions in every random case until the end of time. And now that we would have an "independent" third party watching the NSA, who watches the watchers? At least NSA analysts are trained from Day 0 about the Constitution, USSID 18, FISA, etc. Who monitors the shell company to verify that they're not doing evil things with the database? Perhaps we could have FBI constantly monitor their comms and at least spread the risk around.

nostromo 13y ago

Did you know the Patriot Act sunsets next year, 2015? Let's hope that Snowden has drummed up enough opposition to prevent it from being extended again.

srl 13y ago
It will be extended, of course -- it's a cornerstone of our security establishment at this point. The more realistic thing is to hope for good amendments.
RALaBarge 13y ago
If only the will of the people was a deciding factor in the vote...
- rayiner 13y ago
  http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided... ("Among those who heard at least a lot or some about the Patriot Act, 49% see it as a necessary tool while 41% say it goes too far.").
  - RALaBarge 13y ago
    Ahh, my faith in humanity shattered yet again! =)
  - nostromo 13y ago
    That was pre-Snowden though. The polls have moved a fair amount since then. Actually, even before Snowden things were moving. For example: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/01/top5.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/01/top5.pdf (Do you support) expanded government monitoring of cell phones and email, to intercept communications? 2001: 54 favor, 41 oppose 2006: 52 favor, 46 oppose 2013: 38 favor, 59 oppose
    - rayiner 13y ago

eric_cc 13y ago

Call me crazy but I think we'll see the end of war, famine, and disease before we see the end of spying and surveillance.

srl 13y ago
Asking for it to end is unrealistic. Asking for reasonable limits, and for public knowledge of the general outlines of what is being collected and how it is used, and for proper oversight by the intelligence committees, is much more achievable.

sinak 13y ago

Read the Presidential Policy Directive PPD-28 on Signals Intelligence activities with details on the reforms here: http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf

001sky 13y ago

Live commentary also here http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/live-coverage-of-obamas-n-s-a-speech/#proposals-do-not-address-criticism-of-cyber-programs http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/live-coverage-...

swombat 13y ago
All of it so far is empty and pointless doublespeak. For example: > President Obama is announcing that he wants to end the National Security Agency’s bulk call records program as it currently exists. Why, of course, "as it currently exists" it has a lot of problems. I'm sure the current version can be "ended" and a much more insidious version can be designed. As of the 11:47 update there is nothing of note in there.
- Zikes 13y ago
  Certainly, "as it currently exists" it is known to the public. The new program will be far more secretive.
dictum 13y ago
> Mr. Obama started off by saying the government could not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating foreign networks — and protecting against them. By the logic that arrives to this conclusion, the government can not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating domestic networks either.
- mpyne 13y ago
  To an approximate degree, yes, except that penetration of domestic networks would not be necessary, merely the normal legal processes from CALEA, MOUs with telecom companies, etc. The government already does this kind of stuff, only through the FBI instead of the NSA. You would "penetrate" a foreign network when there is no ability to expect cooperation and no ability to compel.

netcraft 13y ago

The President is still speaking so I don't know what he is going to announce, but as an american, I don't like the concept of citizens and non-citizens being treated differently when it comes to their rights. The distinction is difficult to make anyway, but the declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and does not make a distinction - I don't think we should be able to spy on someone in another country without a warrant any more than we can spy on citizen.

philwelch 13y ago
It's not a question of rights. Every country engages in foreign espionage and treats foreign espionage as a different category of activity from domestic espionage. Things are slightly different when you're spying on private citizens rather than just foreign governments, but then again the whole point of terrorism is that it involves private citizens instead of governments.
- zorked 13y ago
  Are "foreign espionage" and "mass surveillance" the same thing? I am more willing to accept the former as unfortunately unavoidable than the latter.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    That's the real question, and the distinction is that mass surveillance doesn't distinguish between legitimate foreign targets and everyone else.
- arrrg 13y ago
  That doesn't really answer why it's not a question of rights. Everyone else doing it is not really a valid argument that counters rights.
  - philwelch 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rjzzleep 13y ago

so am i getting it right? nothing is going to change. everything stays the same. "we'll think about alternatives" "we have unique capabilities to protect our friends" "as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us ...." "as a nation that has faced totalitarianism the world expects us ... " "the readiness of certain individuals to expect the worst of our readiness to protect the world(not fully correct quote) can be frustrating" haha wtf dude. this is more of a justification than a change notification. we'll make sure the data we collect is better accepted by you people

pekk 13y ago
It's almost as if you only heard the end of the speech - and the parts of the speech you wanted to hear. Whether you think the proposed reforms are enough is up to you, but they certainly extend beyond "think about alternatives".
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  yes, let me quote something for you > The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the > national security of the United States or its partners and allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence > or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage can you tell me where the change is? The document reads more of a "hey trust me, we're really the good guys" http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf care to explain where the real change is? EDIT: since i can't reply. it's all about thinking and discussing if dissemination and retention makes sense. and reducing people that have access to it. and we may put a special person in charge to take care of these things. but that doesn't mean at&t will suddenly stop feeding data into nsa data centers.
  - srl 13y ago
    Section 4 has the real changes.
pmtarantino 13y ago

aeonsky 13y ago

Sham. Nothing is going to change.

pekk 13y ago
Here is the response that HN was going to have regardless of the contents of the speech (or any realistic proposal which might have occurred). It's about wanting to be angry and see punishments more than achieving anything specific
- AmVess 13y ago
  Perhaps is it reasonable cynicism informed by experience.

higherpurpose 13y ago

A summary of his proposals for those who didn't see it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/09011025919/president-obama-surpasses-exceptionally-low-expectations-nsa-reforms-leaves-much-place.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/09011025919/presid...

ck2 13y ago

Am I mistaken or did he completely discard all the recommendations by the security panel he appointed to give him recommendations?

kyleblarson 13y ago

"If you like your privacy, you can keep it."

dj-wonk 13y ago

To comment on just one part: "Obama said he's ordered a plan to be drafted that would shift that data to some other entity." (From http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263357572/coming-up-obama-outlines-nsa-changes http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263357572/com...) In some sense, who collects, stores, and accesses the data is important. But it seems more important to look at the culture, rules, and oversight in place. Asking anyone to design such a system is daunting. Let's say, for the point of argument, that specific, limited, legal, accountable collection is the primary goal and we could design a new system to accomplish that. What are some of the best designs of security protocols and entity structures to protect this information? How far can you get with correct system administration policy? I suspect you need quite a bit beyond currently available tools.

andeh89 13y ago

Like most of you here I'm skeptical and disappointed, but what I'm most sick of is their campaign to paint Snowden as a traitor and enemy of the people. An enemy of the government (especially one this corrupt and over-reaching) is not always an enemy of the people, and I hope history remembers Snowden as the brave individual who shone a light on this travesty and forced them into this discussion.

mpyne 13y ago
He may not be the "enemy of the people", but is his the enemy of the government. Being for the people doesn't always make you right either, Robespierre believed strong in the Revolution but he and his fellow Jacobins of The Mountain were responsible for the "Reign of Terror" intended to root out counter-revolutionary sentiment "for the good of the people". As only one example, a woman was guillotined for exclaiming "a fig to the nation!". So let's not pretend that being for the people automatically makes all of your subsequent actions right or moral. On the other hand, the USG is the one entity chartered by "We the People of the United States", which makes me always at least initially suspicious of people whose plan is to hurt the government (which must almost invariably hurt the people, as long as the government stands). But independent of whether Snowden is fighting the people or the government, the bigger question is whether his actions have hurt the people. In many cases they have. Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people. Nor does leaking details about "targeted access operations" (which, since they must be targeted, cannot be used for mass surveillance essentially by definition). I could go on and on, but the point is simply that Snowden has indeed thrown a few bones with civil liberty implications. But that's not all that he has leaked, and given that he claimed from the beginning that he was very careful in what he selected, it is proper to hold him accountable for his actions, insofar as they do end up being against the American people.
- dictum 13y ago
  > Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people. Let me ask a facetious question: does spying on Petrobras help prevent terrorism in the US?

wavesounds 13y ago

"Regardless of how we got there though the task before us now is greater then simply repariing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding our civil liberties and privacy protections our constitution requires." Regardless of how we got here? It’s Martin Luther King day on Monday. A day named after the person that got us as a country to make ‘important decisions’ about how to ‘sustain our leadership in the world’ and ‘uphold our civil liberties’. Mr. President we don’t disregard the individuals that make us examine our weaknesses in order to make our country better, we embrace them as heroes, even if that self reflection is uncomfortable and difficult at the time.

harshreality 13y ago

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975

sneak 13y ago

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Eisenhower, today in 1961. It was nice while it lasted, guys.

kartikkumar 13y ago

That really was single-handedly THE most boring, uninspiring speech in his entire time in office. There was nothing of substance to it and a real sense that he's not willing to fully accept the mistakes that have been made. His general nonchalance towards issues of privacy is astounding and will go a long way towards shaping how his second term in office is recounted in history books: not good!