Obama: Checks & Balances Work Great To Prevent Abuse By NSA... But, Perhaps We Could Fix Things
from the say-what-now dept
It appears that, for the first time, President Obama has, ever so slightly, conceded that perhaps laws need to be tightened up to prevent abuses by the NSA. Of course, that came immediately after he insisted (falsely) that the current checks and balances were working and that the NSA isn't spying on Americans. This is a flat out lie from the President, and people should call him on it. He's lying."What I can say with confidence is that when it comes to our domestic operation, the concerns that people have back home in the United States of America, that we do not surveil the American people or persons within the United States, that there are a lot of checks and balances in place designed to avoid a surveillance state," Obama said. "There have been times where the procedures, because these are human endeavors, have not worked the way they should and we had to tighten them up. And I think there are legitimate questions that have been raised about the fact that as technology advances and capabilities grow, it may be that the laws that are currently in place are not sufficient to guard against the dangers of us being able to track so much."Once again, that first part -- the part he says "with confidence" -- is a lie. We've already seen plenty of evidence that while the NSA insists that it doesn't surveil people within the US, it appears to do so regularly. Of course, since it classifies these as "incidental," it doesn't think they count, but they do. No, it may not be watching every single thing that US citizens do, but US citizens' data are clearly captured and analyzed quite frequently.
That said, the second part of that statement is actually a tiny step forward, in that it's President Obama actually signalling -- for the first time -- that the program has been abused and that new rules are possible. Many people will complain that it's such a minor statement (and coming right after a flat out lie, not particularly trustworthy), but it is more or less a signal that the President is likely resolved to agree to changes in how the NSA operates. Now the fight will be over what kinds of changes. The administration will seek to minimize those changes, but just the admission that changes need to happen is at least a baby step in the right direction.
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: barack obama, checks and balances, lies, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, us persons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real changes or symbolic changes?
If that's the best we can hope for then it doesn't bode well for our rights as American citizens. It amounts to conceding that the battle against domestic surveillance is all but lost and all that's left to figure out is how much less awful we want it to be. "Least untruthful", meet "least unconstitutional".
The changes needed to make things right would amount to a scrapping everything we have and starting anew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
All those times he was claiming "Oh we don't do it to Americans" "honest". He basically ADMITTED he was doing it to the rest of the world and it was OK to do so.
Obama wants so much to be a "good president" that he plays the game to try and please everyone.
Please the contractors of the NSA... "contract for spy kit and you donate to Democrats... done"
oh shiiiett
Please the American people... "oh no we don't spy on you... done"
oh shiiiett
Please the rest of the world... "oh no we don't spy on you... done"
oh shiiiett
Please the Republicans... "I know they donate to you too, we will keep the spying" ....done"
The guy needs to stop trying to be a "good president" and start working for his people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real changes or symbolic changes?
http://www.zdnet.com/u-k-government-complicit-in-nsas-prism-spy-program-7000016544/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not spying on anyone?
I find it interesting that he's having to address concerns by non-Americans too. Before, they've always said 'don't worry, we're targeting international communications'. Now he's having to dig deeper in the BS and assure the international community that they aren't being spied on. Who does that leave? Is there anyone else that he hasn't lied about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can Obama change human nature ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appease the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As with ever with our Glorious Leader, you really need to dig into every syllable that comes out of his mouth in search for loopholes. My choice of weasel word is "SURVEIL" because, wow, that word could mean anything. "Sure every 0 and 1 that comes out of your computer is being saved to a government hard drive until the heat death of the universe, but it doesn't COUNT as surveillance until they look at it/mine it/ say it does."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. probably not every 0 and 1, just the important ones
3. the universe will probably end in coldness when the last star dies out. Unlikely we will be alive then.
4. I dont care what the government thinks, recording is surveying, I dont care if its never looked at. By there logic they could install a camera in everyone house as long as nobody looks at what its recording...until you know, someone does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The NSA is the hacker, the CIA is the one that collates and acts upon the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What has the CIA got on Obama?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What has the CIA got on Obama?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If local enforcement is in it, sooner or later, the beans are gonna spill that the NSA is and has been in it. When that happens, so much for the idea that the NSA doesn't spy on what you say on the phone.
That there is even the tiniest bit of bending towards owning up to a problem after all this time, this isn't a real own up; its still the same game of cover up and lie. Nothing has changed. As such I want to see the entire internal spying closed down, lock, stock, and barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He knows he'll have to put in a fight over it when they return. He's just setting the table ware before the dinner is served. It's my hope he's the main course over this crap.
He's done nothing but lie and carry water for big corps and finance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIES, LIES and DAMNED LIES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That it's not every single citizen being queried (even though the potential exists for nearly every single individual) is beside the point. The fact is that with as many queries as are being run on a monthly basis it's clear that there's a lot more going on than we actually know about.
The point that should be made is that they're probably targeting very specific groups of citizens and we don't know that it's justifiable legally and that it isn't politically motivated. It's very likely unconstitutional and is very likely not just passive surveillance. I'll be willing to bet they're exerting influence a la Cass Sunstein to neutralize political enemies' influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think you're going to be very happy with the changes that your president has been ordered to implement however. The only changes that his corporate masters are considering are changes that make it :
a. impossible to leak more info about these surveillance operations by making it illegal for any news service to publish such things, and
b. impossible to hold anyone responsible for any of the abuses that will continue to take place at an ever increasing rate, such as the telcos' and NSA's employees.
But I'll just bet you thought he meant he was going to put limits on the spooks' snooping potential didn't you...
Silly humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The point where I disagree is that this means that you can't call Obama a liar about this stuff. You absolutely can: someone is lying when they are speaking in a way that is deceptive, even if what they say is technically true.
It's why it doesn't actually matter what any of them say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I would not discount the possibility that Obama may be relying upon what he has been told by his staff. If this proves to be the case I would be inclined to terminate the lot of them and then demand that the President stop being a mouthpiece and become a cross-examiner before accepting staff statements at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]