President Obama 'Welcomes' The Debate On Surveillance That He's Avoided For Years Until It Was Forced Upon Him
from the that's-not-welcoming-it dept
President Obama's incredibly weak response to the revelations this week of widespread data collection of pretty much everything by the NSA is to say that he "welcomes" the debate. But, of course, he hasn't actually welcomed the debate at all, because people have tried to bring that debate to him for years, and he's brushed them off:When it comes to surveillance, Obama has as president shown no sign of really wanting to have a robust debate. For years, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have been pleading with the administration to disclose more information about call-tracking tactics that they suggested would shock many Americans.In other words, he's not "welcoming" the debate at all. The debate is happening with or without him, and when he had the chance to "welcome" the debate, he didn't. Now, it appears, he's trying to appear willing "to talk" about something that's now gone way beyond the stage where "welcoming the debate" is sufficient.
The administration largely rebuffed those calls. Only after the leak Wednesday of a four-page “top secret” court order indicating that millions of Americans’ phone calls were tracked on a daily basis did officials begin to confirm the program’s details.
But Obama could have chosen at any time to disclose the data-sifting program, or even its rough outlines. That fact leaves critics unimpressed with his latest round of let’s-talk-it-over.
If anything, his helps explain why over-aggressive secrecy is such a stupid government policy. If they had been open about this and there had been public discussions earlier, and people were free to express their concerns, and the government could explain its position, then the discussion would have been different, and more interesting. But having all this information denied by government officials for years, only to come out via a leak just looks so much worse.
Update: So around the time this post went up, President Obama actually spoke directly about all of this. He focused on a non-issue, however: about how they're not listening to everyone's phone calls. Except that was clear from the beginning. It was always said that it was just the data -- but it's a hell of a lot of data: who you called, when you called, how long you spoke to them. That's data that most people feel should be private. After that, he said this:
Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. And again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully apprised of it, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it.But that's not entirely accurate, since it seems pretty clear that there was access to data that included US citizens, so long as the claim was that the investigation (not necessarily any of the parties) targeted non-US persons.
He repeatedly points out that Congress and the FISA Court have repeatedly known and authorized all of this -- which could be read as throwing Congress a bit under the bus (not that they don't deserve it):
So in summary, what you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. And we’re also setting up — we’ve also set up an audit process when I came into office to make sure that we’re, after the fact, making absolutely certain that all the safeguards are being properly observed.But that doesn't help. It just raises more questions about who Congress really represents, and whether or not "the public" is included.
The President does suggest that he might be open to reconsidering some of this, but also explains why he failed to live up to his promise to stop warrantless wiretapping:
But I think it’s important for everybody to understand, and I think the American people understand, that there are some trade-offs involved. You know, I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content — that on, you know, net, it was worth us doing.He was also asked how he felt about it being leaked, and said he wasn't happy about it, given that it was secret for a reason -- but then uses the opportunity to throw Congress under the bus again:
That’s — some other folks may have a different assessment of that. But I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.
That’s why these things are classified.Congress: your ball.
But that’s also why we’ve set up congressional oversight. These are the folks you all vote for as your representative in Congress, and they’re being fully briefed on these programs.
And if in fact there was — there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They’re empowered to do so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: debate, nsa, president obama, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pfft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pfft
If someone says, "I do not give you permission to record this call," can you say, "well, the NSA is already recording it so there is no reason I should not as well."
That is what I would do... and try to get the case up to the taco supreme court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pfft
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/obama-says-the-nsa-has-had-p lenty-of-oversight-heres-why-hes-wrong/?hpid=z1
The "oversight" talk is a joke. Especially when he's already requested "state privileges" over this whole situation". So much for that oversight:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-special-privilege-scrutiny-d ata
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot
Fucking idiot.
I'll have more polite words about this later, after I calm down. Maybe an hour or two.
But right now: �� Mr Obama, you're a fucking idiot to start peddling that Democrat/Republican shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
You should start expecting more bleating about how it was a Republican president who enacted the Patriot Act. That is politics, blame the other crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot
Yes, so what are you going to do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot
Yes. Actually I did expect better from the President of the United States. I did.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who start injecting partisan politics into a discussion like this �on national security� those people are mostly trolls. �� Trolls deservin' to be treated with contempt: �� Trolls.
I expected better from Mr Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
I guess I'm just too old. It probably never was really true that, "Party stops at the water's edge." But while that might have always been a lie, we sorta still believed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
-
What do they mean to accomplish with all of this? We have to ask ourselves. Whats the endgame. It should be quite obvious that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with catching terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot
The "end game" would seem to make the "tin-foil-hats" look wise instead of crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician ignores tough issue until forced to acknowledge it
Seriously ... where are the "old school" journalists who dared to ask tough questions? Of lots of people? And then report what they found out, even if it was tough to talk about?
I'm not talking about Bill's under-the-presidential-desk un-sex, or JFK's affairs. I'm talking about Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, even Whitewater.
Instead, the evening news is "Instant Index" "reports" of he latest viral video, and how many boobs Angelina has left.
It's saddening. And now it's time for me to go have a beer and watch some Deadliest Catch reruns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politician ignores tough issue until forced to acknowledge it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politician ignores tough issue until forced to acknowledge it
That and reporting outright lies as if they were facts (like 'DEATH PANELS' in Obamacare, that never existed in any versions of the bill) brings in more viewers and advertising cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politician ignores tough issue until forced to acknowledge it
They do exist, that 10 year old is proof and now that it's out suddenly she's going to get the transplant...yeah death panels don't exist and libertards are capable of reasonable though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Politician ignores tough issue until forced to acknowledge it
They do exist, that 10 year old is proof and now that it's out suddenly she's going to get the transplant...yeah death panels don't exist and libertards are capable of reasonable though."
Actually, the relevant rules governing transplants were put in place in 2004 when Republicans held the White House and both houses of congress and long before Obamacare. Try again, conservatard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parent: "Son, you've got to stop throwing our trash in the neighbor's yard!"
Child: "I welcome the debate about the relative merits of trash and non-trash throwing policies towards our neighbor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
Where Mike's "no evidence of real harm" means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
until then, first things first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
You could debate with google all you like too until you finally figure out that they don't decide the rules either, but just play by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
Yahoo
Facebook
Microsoft
Skype (and the fact that Skype eavesdropping capabilities came within a month or two of Microsoft acquiring it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collapse Reported Threads, Please
Please don't feed the trolls. Start a new thread.
I might add that there are a few commenter's that I auto don't read, and won't name.
Well I guess my point is that I am casting a vote to collapse responses with reported links. Doing so would make reading the blog significantly more efficient. Also, after time, contributers might follow the axiom above. There would be no censorship, as (in my minds eye) clicking on the red link would expand the thread. However, I think the incentive would be great for those with something to actually say, as apposed to second guessing individual troller's psychopathy or monetary incentive to be such kludges, however funny, and creative some of those are.
/Swimming upstream in a rapacious rip tide, into the wind, in a heavy surf...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
I don't understand why people flag them. I make a point of looking at the flagged posts and if they weren't flagged I might just skim over them.
To me the flagging is a sign that I should pay extra attention to them to see what all the fuss is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Will Mike welcome The Debate On GOOGLE'S Surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA Government way too corrupt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA Government way too corrupt
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_r eclaim.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your words sound hollow like my stomach.
My empty stomach is not your fault, your empty words however are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oregon Senator disputes Obama's claim
�Dem. Senator disputes Obama�s claim that Congress was briefed� by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, June 7, 2013
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley disputes Mr Obama's claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excuse me, your highness....
Pardon moi, to his Worship, but we already had this debate and the results have been in for several hundred years. Being a constitutional scholar, I'm quite surprised that he hasn't bothered consulting the very document that resulted from that debate between men better than he or I....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excuse me, your highness....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And just why is it that you want to be able to comment as him, of all people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress and the Judiciary and the issue of trust
"If people don't trust Congress and the judiciary then I think we are going to have some problems here,"
He does read the polls right? Only 6% of likely voters think Congress does a good job. 68% think it does a poor job! About the only group who consistently gets a lower approval rating in the US are the terrorists themselves!
And the judiciary is a red herring. The FISA courts are designed to be a rubber stamp for the executive branch since they meet in secret, their decisions are secret and unlike other courts there is nobody representing the other side. Our whole American justice system is designed around BOTH sides being able to make their argument in front of a judge/jury and the FISA court is therefore the most un-American court in the nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't you see the weasel words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't you see the weasel words?
Sure, "this program" isn't the one collecting the contents of your communications. They played the same game with the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
Some *other*, still secret program, is the one that authorizes collection of the contents of our phone calls.
Or they're paying word games, where the word "collected" doesn't actually mean "collected" until it gets observed by a human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't you see the weasel words?
There is no 100% security. Period. Ever. NOTHING will ever get 100% security.
The question is are you happy with 95% privacy and 95% security, or 10% privacy and 96% security? Is that a trade off you're willing to make? 80% of your privacy for 1% security?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't you see the weasel words?
Some of the tradeoff depends on how you look at security.
I can think of few things more essential to the security of America than an informed people, capable of organizing themselves for political action.
If you demand for your security the capability of detecting all terrorist associations, then always remember those people in down Alabama terrorized by the NAACP, half a century ago.
We have an inconvenient history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't you see the weasel words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media involvement
Had that not happened we probably would still be complaining and they would still be ignoring us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hm
Then we can talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way things are headed
So at this point he's either lying on his face, he's completely incompetent, or everyone around him has insulated him from all the dirty scandal stuff in order to give Obama plausible deniability. All three options do not help his credibility as a president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The way things are headed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. It is a tradeoff, between privacy, security, and inconvenience; it always has been and always will be. And we as a society have got to decide where that tradeoff should be and whether a nominal improvement in one category is worth the corresponding drop in another.
But there hasn't been any debate, not in any meaningful sense of the word. Laws are passed with little discussion (often in a hurry) and then interpreted in secret. Even if every single member of Congress was aware of it, and even if the general public assumed things like this were probably happening, the fact remains that there was no public debate about whether this tradeoff was worthwhile.
How can we debate the merits of this or that surveillance program if it's implemented, operated, renewed, and run entirely in secret? How can we decide whether or not the privacy we're trading for (supposed) security is worth it? If (when?) a secret surveillance program is abused, how can we fight that abuse? Would we even know it was happening?
I can understand the desire to keep a program like this secret. But for the kind of erosions of basic expectations of privacy that we've been seeing lately there must be, at the very least, a correspondingly strong benefit, and the deliberate choice of the people that said benefit is worth the trade. Since we aren't even told whether or not the surveillance being conducted is being successfully used, and to what benefit, to prevent acts of terrorism (aside from "it's stopped terrorism!") even that determination is impossible.
Yes, we as a society do have choices to make. The problem is, not only are we not being given the chance to make them, but we're not even being told there is anything to discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NAACP v Alabama ex rel Patterson (1958)
In the United States, is any state absolutely and always entitled to know the membership of a political association? Is that consistent with the 14th amendment?
If it be not consistent with the 14th amendment, then is that conclusion compelled by the 14th itself, freestanding? Or is there some other provision within the bill of rights�one that might apply equally to the federal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But haven't we already made those choices, back in the 1700s when the Founding Fathers penned Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America with the full support of the populace?
And shouldn't that choice be respected until such time as society clearly indicates that it has changed its mind, using the approved process of further amending the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, I'm just not a very good Jeffersonian. �� In fact, I am ��at best�� a bad Jeffersonian.
But even as a downright awful Jeffersonian, I do feel compelled to point out that none of us now alive were born yet in the late 1700s. �� And, as for those of the founding generation�they're all dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience."
����� ����� ��Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801.
"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment."
����� ����� ��Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.
"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
����� ����� ��Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you implying that Smith v Maryland (1979) results from the principles set forth in the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You making some kind of comment about 'xactly how downright awful Mr Jefferson could be? �� What you gettin' at there?
�
�
It is an inconvenient history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say if We Spied on You. -NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a load of crap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's say I have a card. It's a spell card the says "Destroy target creature".
My opponent has a very powerful creature card that I want to get rid of. Unfortunately it has an ability that reads "This creature cannot be the target of spells or abilities. Therefore, I cannot use my "Destroy target creature" card to get rid of it, because I can't target it.
However, I have also have a spell card that reads "Destroy all creatures in play". I can use that card to remove his creature (as well as all other creatures) because it is a global effects and doesn't target the specific creature.
So say I'm the NSA and I say "gimme all phone record on May 5th for Chicago, LA, and NY". I'm not specifically targeting anyone, so therefore I'm not technically violating the rules of the game. If I happen to find something while sifting through the data, I can just pass the information along to someone who can target the specific person(s) in question. When you call me out on it, I can "honestly" tell you that I'm not targeting anyone because nobody has actually explained the rules I am playing by (secret interpretation and all that jive).
This rule also works well if they aren't actively monitoring services like they claim, and are in fact just getting data copies from them like I saw suggested in an earlier article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think those choices for society were made long ago and codified by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think those choices for society were made long ago and codified by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that�s also why we�ve set up congressional oversight. These are the folks you all vote for as your representative in Congress, and they�re being fully briefed on these programs.
And if in fact there was � there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They�re empowered to do so."
That's also why we elected YOU. You have the ability to do something about it. Congress isn't blameless they could have done something too but that isn't the question. The question is why didn't YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
�Republican lawmakers: NSA surveillance news to us�, by Burgess Everett and Jake Sherman, Politico, June 7, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now we're all shocked and outraged? Seriously?
After 13 years of hiding our heads in the sand about what's been going on we're now going to act like we're shocked and appalled?
Serves us right! Maybe this time we'll finally learn something. (Although I doubt it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emo-progs and voting
The Pat Act is up for renewal again in May of 2015, that's shortly after the new congress sits just as it was in 2011. If you really really really don't like this crap, then staying away from the polls in this critical mid-term election of 2014, is clearly not the solution!
I don't god damned care what your excuse is, or your rationalizations. Not voting and the consequences belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. Stop whining and blaming others for our mistakes. Own them, learn from them, do better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Emo-progs and voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prez needs a napkin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]