Hillary Clinton Still Refuses To Make Her Views Clear On Surveillance, And That's A Problem

from the this-is-an-issue dept

Wed, Nov 5th 2014 3:55pm — Mike Masnick

Earlier this year, we noted that absolutely-running-for-President-while-pretending-to-think-about-it Hillary Clinton gave a stupid and vague non-answer answer to her position on government surveillance. It was the perfect politician's answer, refusing to really take a position that could be held against her at some point in the future. Except, on important issues, refusing to answer sometimes isn't an answer, and this is a perfect case of that. The leading contenders for the Republican nomination appear to have all made statements one way or the other, while Hillary has done everything possible not to take a position on the matter.

If Hillary Clinton has a position on the government's domestic spying, she's doing a good job of hiding it.

More than a year after Edward Snowden's leaks, the former secretary of State has yet to offer a meaningful assessment of the National Security Agency's mass-surveillance programs. She's had plenty of chances, but in interviews, speeches, and even her new book, Clinton has repeatedly ducked the issue with vagaries and cliches.

The possible 2016 candidate rarely discusses NSA spying unprompted. And when she does, her remarks are often couched in opaque platitudes about the need to balance privacy and national security concerns.

Again, it's not surprising from a political standpoint, but you have to wonder if it will come back to hurt her. While surveillance may not be a top voting issue these days, many inside DC seem to be underestimating just how important it is to many people.

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: hillary clinton, nsa, politics, surveillance

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:02pm

A non-answer answer you say?

"Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives.

Top secret cables revealed that Mrs Clinton, the Secretary of State, even ordered diplomats to obtain DNA data – including iris scans and fingerprints - as well as credit card and frequent flier numbers."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333920/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-ordered-U-S-diplo mats-spy-UN-leaders.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:04pm

Let's examine the voting record:
Voted YES on the original PATRIOT and YES on its '05/'06 extension.
Voted NAY on PAA07 and NO on FAA08.

So according to these votes metadata surveillance, NSLs, sneak-and-peek = OK. Pure content surveillance = NOT OK. Given that metadata is pound-for-pound more revealing compared to content I remain unconvinced of her being pro-reform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:06pm

While surveillance may not be a top voting issue these days, many inside DC seem to be underestimating just how important it is to many people.

Well yeah. How often do they actually make issues that are important to most people into voting issues?

Think back two years. In the run-up to the 2012 elections, there was one political issue that got people throughout the country and throughout the world really fired up. Not just "I'm going to talk about this" levels, but to the point where they actually went out and took action. Calling lawmakers in record numbers, overwhelming Congressional switchboards, etc. And Techdirt was right in the middle of it, so anyone who's been following this site for that long should remember what it was: opposition to SOPA.

Considering that the Obama administration in general, and Vice President Joe Biden in particular, have been strongly cheerleading every horrible copyright abuse proposal that's come along since 2008, when I heard that every Republican candidate had spoken out in opposition to SOPA, I thought "OK, it's all over now. Obama's on the way out."

Of course, we all know what happened, or more specifically, what didn't happen. In a stunning miscalculation, somehow the Romney campaign utterly failed to make opposition to copyright abuse any part of their platform after that brief mention of support back in the primaries. And so nobody captured the votes of the one massive bloc of Americans who actually had a political issue that they cared deeply about... and we got stuck with the status quo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inwoods (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:13pm

"on important issues, refusing to answer sometimes isn't an answer, and this is a perfect case of that."

It think you mean "sometimes IS an answer." Tautologies are hardly shocking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inwoods (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:14pm

Re:
And of course it makes a typo with corrections. Ah, Bartleby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who Me?, 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:19pm

Does it matter what she says?
Every president after Carter has been a bigger fascist than any before when it comes to executive power, surveillance and secrecy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
collier (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:40pm

surveillance may not be a voting issue for you...
... but it totally is for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:58pm

The next two years
Look forward to:

1)Ground war against ISIS
2)More invasive surveillance
3)passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership
4)Proxy war(s) with Russia

You can vote however you'd like, the results are the same. Politics more closely resemble professional sports leagues than public service these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnonCow, 5 Nov 2014 @ 4:58pm

A real and substantive policy issue for the GOP to use against Clinton? Wow, that would actually be a refreshing change of pace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 5:34pm

wikileaks
Hillary was embarrassed by the Manning leak. She will do whatever it takes to get revenge on anyone associated with wiki leaks or anything similar. That means more surveillance. And she will feal righteous about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 5:58pm

We have no worth while candidates , they all accept bribes only care for the 1% of the country and careless about the people who vote them in , this election is more about citizens being humanized instead of demonized and treated as cattle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 7:12pm

Hey, i'd rather her give non-answers than outright lies like Obama on the campaign trail.

In the choice between the giant douche and the turd sandwich I'll take evasion over baldfaced lying any day. Not that Hilary would ever get a vote from me either way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 5 Nov 2014 @ 7:30pm

It's very interesting that Hillary wants privacy when it comes to surveillance...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 8:20pm

It's easy to tell her views on the matter

She is not speaking out against the blatant criminality of the current methods being used against americans so its very clear she supports it.

As long as it is not used against her and removes her rights she supports removing the rights of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 8:21pm

Re:
going to end up being sexist if you disagree with her actions, just like the fools that claim your racist if you disagree with Obama's actions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Nov 2014 @ 9:15pm

Re:
Beat me to it.

By remaining silent on the issue she is in fact making her position on it clear: She is in support of it, and is at least smart enough to realize that the public isn't, hence, silence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2014 @ 11:56pm

the 'least untruthful' candidate
But does it really even make any difference. As a candidate, Obama made his views on such topics not only unambiguous and crystal clear, but he promised to abolish these things if elected.

But as president, Obama didn't just drag his feet when it came to fulfilling his campaign promises, he did the exact opposite of what he promised.

Personally, I prefer Clinton's non-answers to Obama's outright lies, but that's just me. But in the end, it makes no difference who gets elected or what they promise to do -- the end result is always the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:07am

If she gets elected i doubth surveillance will be a big issue.
Most of the world will be watching the US with popcorn in hand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:20am

"Hillary Clinton Still Refuses To Make Her Views Clear On Surveillance," and in doing so makes her views clear on surveillance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:44am

We already know her views. They are just as bad as Obama's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:02am

Re: The next two years
You took the words out of my mouth, AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:05am

Re: wikileaks
She could have made everything better by punishing those responsible for the murder of journalists and civilians, but she let them get away and locked up Manning.

That's like the cops arresting you for reporting a burglary.

It's not right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 6:06am

Her views are clear
Not making her views clear actually does make them clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 7:59am

We have to assume
If a politician isn't expressing outrage (or at least significant concern) over the spying, or if the politician is more outraged about Snowden than what Snowden revealed, then we have to assume that the politician is supportive of what the government has been doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:46am

Re:
I actually think that her views are worse than Obama's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 11:42am

Refuses, huh,.....kinda says it all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 12:27pm

Correcting the first line of the article:

This morning, the FBI excitedly announced that they had arrested Blake Benthall as the alleged operator of Silk Road 2.0,

Changed to:

This morning, the FBI excitedly announced that they had arrested Blake Benthall (a paid FBI Stooge) so they can pretend they've had another "terrorism win"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:22pm

Hillary should give a shit about Voters?
"While surveillance may not be a top voting issue these days, many inside DC seem to be underestimating just how important it is to many people."

Unless Hillary was aware of the one thing that most Americans are not - that the voters really have no say in who gets (s)elected to office any more and the Vote itself is nothing more than a PR placebo soap opera, to keep the peasants believing in the dead American Dream, while the Ownership Society Members cash in America's Chips for Chinese gold.

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Willy, 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:17pm

Re:
That depends on what the definition of IS is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 7 Nov 2014 @ 4:21pm

Re: Hillary should give a shit about Voters?
Addendum:

Situation is probably far worse that originally thought.
It looks like there might be a very good reason why Clinton is not worried about what the US voting public thinks.

All the new political TV shows seem to be about women in and around the Oval Office... looks like the US Public is being propa-managed once again - groomed to accept a new ringer. A female president.

After all, Bush killed the chance of getting a Republican in office as long as memory holds - another 5-6 years or so - so the Republicans had to use the Black Card to get a Republican in a Democrat Hat into the Whitehouse. Obama.

The Black Card has run its course. Even most Blacks are now aware that Obama is a Trojan Horse. His chances of re-selection are extremely slim, even with a new war under his belt, as the corporations in control need someone that can inspire "CON-fidence" in the general peasantry.

So, that leaves only one choice - A Woman P-Resident.

And lets face it, Hillary is perfect. She wears a Democrat Hat and is about as fascist as Mussolini on a bad day.

She will cater to the banks and the Big Corporations and the Surveillance Security Industries and increase the Terror Budgets and decrease American Freedoms and kill the internet and do all of the really good shit Republican Fascists love so much... and she'll enjoy doing it - 100%.

And the Republican Pundits can keep right on shitting on the White House as if they disapproved of everything she is doing, just like they do now with Obama.

(This process, Republican News poo-pooing the reigning fake Democrat P-Resident, keeps the idiot Democrats among the public thinking they must have elected the right person if its pissing off the Republicans so much, just like under Obama)

Yep. Looks like its Hillary For P-Resident and More Shit Sandwiches for the US Public. Might be time to reconsider that move to somewhere that still has a real democracy - like maybe Guam. :)

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]