The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Another day, another example of copyright being used as censorship. As you may have heard, there was a bit of controversy this weekend when talk show host Ellen DeGeneres attended the Dallas Cowboys game with former President George W. Bush. This made lots of people quite upset as they argued that being friends with Bush was either support for "tolerance of hate and discrimination" or an effort at "whitewashing... his manifest crimes." Others argued, as Ellen did, that there are good reasons to be kind to people you fundamentally disagree with.

Wherever you come down on that debate, hopefully you can agree that, no matter what, the Ellen Show was wrong to use a copyright claim to take down a transformative video, created by Rafael Shimunov, that took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that came about from President Bush's policies. This is, of course, classic fair use. Taking a bit of video (1 minute and 46 seconds) from Ellen's show, and using it in a transformative way to provide commentary and criticism of Ellen's speech. Even if you think it's unfair or heavy handed, it still should quite clearly be protected by fair use. But, instead:

That's the original tweet posting the video, showing that it has been "disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."

Of course, in response to this, a whole bunch of folks are now reposting the video on Twitter. So far, (as I type this), they've mostly remained online -- which at least suggests that the original takedown was not an automated takedown notice or machine recognition situation, but a deliberate report. Indeed, other tweets suggest that the "social media manager" of The Ellen Show sent a DMCA takedown over the video.

It's possible (likely?) that this lower level staffer just thought she was stopping "copyright infringement" (and maybe didn't even realize the transformative nature of the video), but it still highlights the incredible censorial powers of copyright law and the DMCA, in which, by mere accusation, the content may get deleted -- especially regarding a time-sensitive and politically relevant discussion.

Still, as happens when these situations come about, tons of people are now reposting the video:

Perhaps this is something that Ellen might want to discuss with Barbra Streisand the next time she has Streisand on her show...

Filed Under: censorship, commentary, dmca, ellen degeneres, fair use, george w. bush, political speech, transformative
Companies: the ellen show, twitter

George W. Bush Tried To Retroactively Declare Illegal, Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance Legal, Because He Said So

from the secret-laws,-secret-interpretations dept

When it comes to the NSA, we've been discussing just how dangerous it is when the government gets to put in place its own secret interpretation of laws that, when read by the public, appear to say something quite different than the secret interpretation. Otherwise you have secret laws, and that's no way to run an open Constitutional democracy. For many years, it's been known that in March of 2004 there was a hospital room showdown between then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (with White House Chief of Staff Andy Card) and (at the time, quite ill) Attorney General John Ashcroft and acting Attorney General James Comey, over whether or not to reauthorize some sort of surveillance program. Comey, Ashcroft, and then FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign over the issue, and eventually, we were told, President Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. We knew at the time that the dispute was over domestic surveillance and whether or not it was legal. More recently, it came out that it was over domestic collection of internet/email metadata. This was a program similar to the phone metadata program that was revealed by Ed Snowden, but for email/internet information.

However, in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the NY Times, late on Friday, the government declassified some more information about what happened, and it appears that George W. Bush tried to first retroactively "legalize" this pretty clearly unconstitutional domestic surveillance, by saying that he'd always meant that while the NSA could sweep up all metadata, it didn't technically "acquire" it until it did a search on it. Again, this is in direct contrast to what most people thought the law (and the 4th Amendment) says the government could do.

This happened on March 11th, the day after the hospital showdown. President Bush signed a new authorization for the mass surveillance of internet records, but first decided that the White House Counsel, Gonzales, could certify it by himself, rather than having the Attorney General sign it, as in the past. This new authorization, though, directly claims that the President can simply override the law, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was put in place to limit the Executive Branch's ability to spy on Americans in the first place. Then there's the added language saying that the information is only actually "acquired" when its searched for even though it has already "retained" all the data. In other words, to get around the whole Constitution, Bush apparently just redefined the word acquire. And, to make this all the more obnoxious, while this language was only included for the first time on March 11th, the authorization claimed that Bush had really meant this to be the case all along. In short, the day after being told that the surveillance on Americans' internet metadata was likely unconstitutional, President Bush (though put together by Dick Cheney's top legal beaver David Addington) decided to fix all that by signing a new authorization that redefined a basic English word ("acquire") and then retroactively say that this new definition applied backwards on all previous authorizations to spy on Americans, pretending that this magic incantation suddenly made it all Constitutional.

Apparently these legal shenanigans were enough to make then NSA Director Michael Hayden perfectly happy to keep spying on Americans in violation of both the FISA law and the Constitution. This whole thing seems pretty horrific all around. The whole point of FISA was to restrict the government from spying on Americans. And, yes, we know that the past two administrations have basically tapdanced their way around that, but now we're getting more details on exactly how. It starts with John Yoo insisting that the President can basically do whatever the fuck he wants because it's "wartime" (never mind that Congress never officially declared war...), and then that the President can just override FISA because he says so. Then, let's add into that the fact that the President (with help from David Addington) can apparently just redefine plain English words, in order to make illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans appear legal, but, even more crazy, is that he can claim this new definition applies retroactively, after people realize that they may be on the hook for a few years worth of unconstitutional surveillance.

And, again, the folks who did all this keep telling us that we should just "trust them" because they're doing everything to keep us safe.

There are some things that it's entirely reasonable to keep secret if you're a government. But your secret definition of a law that anyone can read -- as well as your actions retroactively pushing that unique definition back historically, do not seem like the kinds of things that should be kept secret.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, alberto gonzales, andy card, david addington, george w. bush, internet metadata, james comey, john yoo, metadata, nsa, privacy, retroactive, richard ashcroft, secret interpretation, secret law, surveillance

Guy Accused Of Leaking President Bush's Paintings Indicted For Hacking In The US

from the extradition-coming dept

An online hacker who went by the name "Guccifer" got a lot of attention a year and a half ago or so for regularly hacking into the email and social media accounts of various political officials and insiders along with some Hollywood folks, with the most high profile being former President George W. Bush's email, leading to the leaking of some of Bush's early attempts at painting. But that was hardly all. Among others, he hacked into email and/or social media accounts of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Colin Powell, top Hillary Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, venture capitalist John Doerr, former White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, actor Jeffrey Tambor (Jeffrey Tambor?!?!), Sex and the City author Candace Bushnell, Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, President Obama's head of the National Intelligence Council Christopher Kojm and the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration Neile Miller. In other words, Guccifer was pretty busy.

Then, earlier this year he was arrested in Romania. It turned out that he was Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Romanian cabdriver. Thing is, he didn't just hack the famous and powerful in the US -- but in Romania as well. Just last week, he was sentenced to four years in jail in Romania, with the possibility of more for earlier hacks. And, just like that, the FBI has announced an indictment against him as well, meaning that the US will likely to get him extradited (and, yes, the US has an extradition treaty with Romania).

While the indictment does not name the people who were hacked, calling them Victim 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it's not difficult to figure out that Victim 1 is President Bush's sister Dorothy Bush, which is how he got the GWB paintings (GWB had sent photos of them to his sister) and Victim 3 is Colin Powell, who had to deny an affair with a foreign diplomat after some of his emails were leaked. The indictment appears to suggest a particular infatuation with Powell, as it also included hacks of his Facebook page and posting anti-Bush rants on Powell's Facebook page.

I'm always a little nervous about computer hacking cases, because the government is fairly well known for exaggerating non-hacking situations and pretending that they're hacking under the CFAA, but assuming that this guy really did get into all of these accounts, it seems like what the CFAA was more written to cover in the first place.

The full indictment is below, but what I'm trying to figure out is how "victim 2" got included in the list. Notice if you can spot which one of the following "is different from the others" in the list below:

• Victim 1... was a family member of two former U.S. presidents who was the true owner of an AOL account....
• Victim 2... was a sanitation engineer who was the true owner of an AOL account....
• Victim 3... was a former U.S. Cabinet member who resided in the Eastern District of Virginia. Victim 3 was the true owner of an AOL account with subaccounts and a Facebook account....
• Victim 4... was a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff who was the true owner of a Facebook account....
• Victim 5, known to the grand jury, was a journalist and former presidential advisor who was the true owner of an AOL account with subaccounts....

It just seems that if you were to put the five of those together at a Washington DC cocktail party, one of them would stick out as somewhat different from the others.

Filed Under: cfaa, colin powell, doj, email, fbi, george w. bush, guccifer, hacking, marcel lazar lehel

George W. Bush Used Top Google Results For All His Paintings; Will He Be Sued For Copyright Infringement?

from the w-is-an-appropriation-artist dept

You may have heard the recent stories about former President George W. Bush's new exhibit of paintings of world leaders. There's been plenty of chatter about the former President picking up painting as a hobby since leaving office. While many may have assumed that he used his experience in meeting with those world leaders in order to have an accurate representation of what they looked like, the truth is that he just pulled results from Google Image search result for each one. Literally. Some people have gone through and done Google Image searches on each of the subjects he painted, and discovered that the paintings were clearly all based on either the very first result, or very near the top search result. Yes, that's right. George W. Bush is an appropriation artist.

Many of those images are from Wikipedia, where they're under Creative Commons licensing, but others are clearly covered by copyright. As Animal New York notes, the image of former French President Jacques Chirac comes from a photo of the cover of Chirac's book cover, where the copyright on the photo is actually held by the Associated Press. The Animal New York article is probably correct that it's unlikely that the Associated Press will go after the former President for copyright infringement, but only because it's hypocritical. In the past, the Associated Press did, in fact, sue Shepard Fairey over his iconic image of President Obama, that was also based on an AP photo. Fairey (stupidly) did himself in by trying to destroy evidence and then lie about it, seriously harming his case, and distracting from the central question of whether or not his image was fair use. But, the AP has sued others over that image as well, so you never know.

While the chances are minimal, it certainly would be interesting to have a case in which, of all people, George W. Bush, becomes the poster child for fair use.

Filed Under: appropriation art, copyright, george w. bush, image search, paintings, photographs, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press

Lawyer Who Gave President Bush Legal Cover For Warrantless Wiretapping Now Claims We'll Come To Love An Intrusive NSA

from the because-he's-clueless dept

Late last week, an incredibly dishonest piece was published in The New Republic by Jack Goldsmith arguing not just that we "need" an "invasive NSA," but further, that we'll all come to love and appreciate the NSA snooping on all of our electronic communications (including snooping through the "contents" rather than just metadata). Why? Because of that old bogeyman "hackers"! We'll dig through the blatant cluelessness of the piece in a moment, but just to set the context, it's important to note that Goldsmith, back when he was a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, wrote the memo that gave legal cover for Bush's warrantless wiretapping efforts. The legal argument was ridiculous: it was, more or less, "if the President does it, it's okay, because he's like powerful and stuff."

We conclude that in the circumstances of the current armed conflict with al Qaeda, the restrictions set out in FISA, as applied to targeted efforts to intercept the communications of the enemy in order to prevent further armed attacks on the United States, would be an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutionally assigned powers of the President. The President has inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States. Congress does not have the power to restrict the President’s exercise of that authority.

Got that? It's not the 4th Amendment he was worried about infringing on, but rather the "assigned powers of the President," which he argued included ignoring the 4th Amendment's requirement for a warrant before wiretapping. Anyway, so that gives you some sense of the kind of person writing this defense of an intrusive NSA. He believes that if the President is doing it for a good reason (as, apparently, decided by the President), then it's perfectly legal, because separation of powers is another concept that can be ignored.

Okay, back to his present... screed. The key argument here seems to be to puff up cybersecurity FUD as much as possible to argue that it won't be long until we're all begging the NSA to spy on us to stop hackers from defacing websites. His big "example" of this is the recent hacking of the NY Times' website by the Syrian Electronic Army. That story got a bit of attention for about two days, and then fell off the map -- which is precisely why Goldsmith is wrong. For all the FUD NSA supporters and big defense contractors keep claiming over cybersecurity, they seem to be unable to get past the fact that when someone hacks a website and defaces it, while it may be a nuisance, no one dies. Yes, they like to talk up how many cybersecurity attacks there are going on these days, but they won't discuss the fact that in all of them exactly zero people have died.

The story of the NY Times hacking disappeared almost as quickly as it happened, because the consequences weren't particularly large or important. Yet, Goldsmith is arguing, effectively, that the NSA needs access to all networks in order to prevent the SEA from hacking the NYT again.

The U.S. government can fully monitor air, space, and sea for potential attacks from abroad. But it has limited access to the channels of cyber-attack and cyber-theft, because they are owned by private telecommunication firms, and because Congress strictly limits government access to private communications. “I can’t defend the country until I’m into all the networks,” General Alexander reportedly told senior government officials a few months ago.

For Alexander, being in the network means having government computers scan the content and metadata of Internet communications in the United States and store some of these communications for extended periods. Such access, he thinks, will give the government a fighting chance to find the needle of known malware in the haystack of communications so that it can block or degrade the attack or exploitation. It will also allow it to discern patterns of malicious activity in the swarm of communications, even when it doesn’t possess the malware’s signature. And it will better enable the government to trace back an attack’s trajectory so that it can discover the identity and geographical origin of the threat.

This makes two big assumptions -- one of which is false and the other of which is misleading. The first is that the NSA could or would actually successfully stop such a hack. This is false. Just like the NSA was unable to actually predict the Boston Marathon bombings, the idea that it could somehow catch a simple phishing trick is laughable. Goldsmith goes on at length about "malware" -- which he seems to grant mystical powers to -- but ignores that the reason the NYT's website got hacked was because of social engineering (via someone phishing an employee at a domain registrar), not malware. The NSA isn't going to catch that.

Secondly, there's the assumption that the NSA will actually "block or degrade the attack or exploitation." This appears to ignore pretty much everything that's come out about the NSA's activities lately, including its regular buying of exploits, placing backdoors in products and security standards, and its general focus on using such things offensively rather than defensively.

Goldsmith just keeps repeating these silly claims with ever grander claims over and over in the piece, as if he repeats it enough, perhaps someone will believe it. Frankly, Goldsmith comes off as an authoritarian-loving lawyer who is almost entirely technologically illiterate. He seems over-awed by the technology and thus insists that (1) the NSA needs to spy on everything to "protect" us and (2) that the government somehow will actually be the best party to protect insecure systems (totally ignoring the fact that the same government actively weakened those same technologies). For example, he goes back to the claim that some computer vandalism will make people open their arms to a spying NSA:

The first is that the cybersecurity threat is more pervasive and severe than the terrorism threat and is somewhat easier to see. If the Times’ website goes down a few more times and for longer periods, and if the next penetration of its computer systems causes large intellectual property losses or a compromise in its reporting, even the editorial page would rethink the proper balance of privacy and security. The point generalizes: As cyber-theft and cyber-attacks continue to spread (and they will), and especially when they result in a catastrophic disaster (like a banking compromise that destroys market confidence, or a successful attack on an electrical grid), the public will demand government action to remedy the problem and will adjust its tolerance for intrusive government measures.

Except, again, there's little indication that any such attack would shatter people's trust in the market. This seems to presuppose an incredibly stupid populace, not one that can process basic information like "this website was hacked, and it may be inconvenient, but we'll get over it." Ditto the bogeyman of "hacking the electric grid." The NSA has talked up this "electric grid" threat for years and it's bogus. Actual experts have (literally) called such claims "a bunch of hooey." And even if hackers could take down an electric grid for some period of time, we have at least some sense of what will happen, thanks to the Northeast blackout of 2003, which took down a massive section of power in the northeast and midwest. And this was soon after 9/11, so people were especially sensitive to threats of terrorism... and they didn't freak out or destroy society. They waited for things to get sorted out, and people moved on with life. No biggie.

So the whole claim that "the cybersecurity threat is more pervasive and severe than the terrorism threat" is ridiculous.

Goldsmith may want to support his beloved surveillance state, which he personally helped expand a decade ago, but fear mongering is no way to make a compelling argument -- especially when it appears so clueless about the basics of technology and the threats out there.

Filed Under: george w. bush, jack goldsmith, nsa, nsa surveillance

The Differences Between Obama And Bush On NSA Surveillance, According To Virtual Obama

from the watch-this dept

It feels like it's been a while since I've seen Xtranormal videos, but someone who shall remain nameless has put together a rather hysterical video of President Obama explaining why massive NSA surveillance under his watch is different than when it was done by President George W. Bush. As you may recall, President Obama criticized these programs while he was "Candidate Obama," but has now expanded them massively. This video explains why -- and is likely to make you laugh: Below are some of my favorite lines... which is actually nearly a full transcript, because as I was picking out "favorite" lines, most of the video fell into that category.

It was concerning when the Bush administration was secretly collecting your information. Heck, I had concerns back then myself. But, everyone knows that George W. Bush was not a good President. Whereas, I am a good President. See the difference? So, while you could not trust George W. Bush to secretly collect your data, you can trust me. I'm a trustworthy guy.

Another important difference between my administration and the Bush administration is that when the Bush administration secretly spied on you, the Bush administration could not point to a single judge willing to say their program was legal. We, on the other hand, can point to such a judge. I'm not going to tell you who this judge is, or why he or she thinks our program is legal. If I did that, it would, obviously be harder for me to convince you that the program is legal. Instead, I'm just going to tell you that we secretly found one judge who was willingly to secretly say that it was legal for us to collect all of your data....

The Bush administration could not tell you that it had informed Congress. Whereas my administration took steps to ensure that if you ever found out about our secret surveillance program, we could tell you that we informed Congress. To be clear, when I say 'we informed Congress,' I am not saying that we did out best to ensure that Congress had enough information to have an informed debate on this vital national security issue. What I am saying is that we informed Congress enough for me to stand here and tell you that 'we informed Congress.' What Congress actually knew is not important....

If Congress did not want us to secretly interpret the law, then Congress should not have passed a law for us to secretly interpret....

If you, the American people, did not want me to secretly collect your data, then you should not have elected me President. Yes, I know many of you were probably unaware that I wanted to secretly collect your data, especially since I said I would not secretly collect your data. But, I choose to believe that you elected me to be your President, because you believe that if someone has to secretly collect your data, that someone should be me. And, as we all know, my secret interpretations of your support are more important than the reasons you actually supported me.

Finally, while I do not believe there is any reason to debate this issue, I will tell you that I welcome a debate on this issue. In fact, I'm so grateful that Edward Snowden started this debate that I have decided to stop at nothing to ensure he spends the rest of his life in a federal prison.

Filed Under: barack obama, fisa court, fisc, george w. bush, nsa surveillance, secret interpretations, surveillance

George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem Because Civil Liberties Are Guaranteed

from the say-what-now? dept

Former President George W. Bush commented on a variety of subjects in an interview with CNN, but of most interest to me was his comments on the NSA surveillance leaks. It's well known that many of the programs started under his administration, and apparently, he insists that the programs are fine because civil liberties are "guaranteed."

"I think there needs to be a balance, and as the president explained, there is a proper balance," Bush said.

Asked about an NSA program that tracks people's Internet activity, Bush said, "I put that program in place to protect the country. One of the certainties was that civil liberties were guaranteed."

Of course, the various leaks to date suggest that's not even close to true. But, really, what does that even mean? How are they "guaranteed"? You can't just say that sort of thing, you have to actually make sure it's true, and so far there's been little to no evidence to support that claim. For civil liberties to be guaranteed there would need to be a clear belief and reverence for things like the 4th Amendment. Instead, we have secret FISA court rulings that reinterpret the plain language of the Patriot Act to mean something different than how it reads in English. How is that "guaranteeing" civil liberties? It sounds a lot more like redefining words so that the administration can "claim" that civil liberties are protected by making sure that any that aren't actually protected are simply written out of what counts as "civil liberties."

Filed Under: civil liberties, george w. bush, nsa surveillance

Why The NSA And President Bush Got The FISA Court To Reinterpret The Law In Order To Collect Tons Of Data

from the a-bit-more-revealing dept

Over the weekend, the Washington Post published yet another revelation about the NSA's surveillance capabilities, including some details of various "code named" data collection projects like MAINWAY, MARINA and NUCLEON. NUCLEON is the program for intercepting telephone calls (the actual content), though that's apparently limited. MAINWAY and MARINA are focused on all the data about communications (what everyone's been referring to as metadata), but not the actual content.

But what struck me as most interesting about the report is that it reveals some of the details of why the FISA court reinterpreted a key part of the Patriot Act to allow the NSA to do bulk collection of data -- contrary to its plain wording -- and how that interpretation has been used by the government. We've discussed in the past that the telcos had a habit of voluntarily handing over a ton of information (i.e., nearly everything) to the government on no legal basis at all. However, when the NY Times broke the story back in 2006 about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, the telcos freaked out. As was widely covered, that led to passing a law that gave the telcos retroactive immunity for breaking the law (which they did). However, apparently, the telcos (with the help of the administration) sought to have the FISA court reinterpret the patriot act such that the limitation on "relevant" business records in Section 215 would now mean "all of them." The law was written such that the FISA court is only supposed to allow for the collection of "tangible" things (including records) if it can be shown to the court that the specific thing being collected is relevant to an investigation. The FISA Court apparently believes that means anything -- and that's the crux of the secret interpretation from the FISA Court which it and the DOJ have been refusing to reveal.

When the New York Times revealed the warrantless surveillance of voice calls, in December 2005, the telephone companies got nervous. One of them, unnamed in the report, approached the NSA with a request. Rather than volunteer the data, at a price, the “provider preferred to be compelled to do so by a court order,” the report said. Other companies followed suit. The surveillance court order that recast the meaning of business records “essentially gave NSA the same authority to collect bulk telephony metadata from business records that it had” under Bush’s asserted authority alone.

The article also highlights an even bigger mess around the collection of internet data. Bush had ordered it to be done, covering email data and Skype calls, from the siphoning they were doing directly off the network from the telcos. Cheney's lawyer wrote up the order. Then there was the somewhat infamous story of a bunch of top DOJ officials, including FBI boss Robert Mueller and his expected replacement James Comey, who apparently threatened to resign, pointing out that this was not actually legal. NSA boss Michael Hayden, apparently has no scruples at all, and said he was fine with keeping the program going, even if the Attorney General wouldn't sign the order. Lawyers for the NSA also tried out a ridiculous interpretation of the law that said they could collect everything, but they didn't technically "acquire" anything until they looked at it. While the report claims this interpretation is no longer used by the NSA, it certainly seems like officials have argued that data is not "collected" until they look at it. Either way, the FISA court stepped in to "make it legal" to do such bulk data collection:

Three months later, on July 15, the secret surveillance court allowed the NSA to resume bulk collection under the court’s own authority. The opinion, which remains highly classified, was based on a provision of electronic surveillance law, known as “pen register, trap and trace,” that was written to allow law enforcement officers to obtain the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls from a single telephone line.

Basically, when data collection runs up against the limits of the law, the FISA court steps in with a secret reinterpretation of the law to let intelligence officials do what they want. There are no adversarial hearings with anyone arguing the other side, and since the rulings are secret, the judges never even have to be worried about criticism. Hence the infamous rubber stamp of the court.

Filed Under: business records, fisa, fisa court, george w. bush, james comey, michael hayden, nsa, nsa surveillance, robert mueller

The Current Surveillance State Is The End Result Of Two Consecutive Presidents Rewriting Their Job Descriptions

from the go-back-to-bed,-America,-your-government-is-in-control dept

The escalating build-out of the American surveillance state since 9/11 can't be attributed to any one factor. There have been several contributors, most of which have used the omnipresent "threat" of terrorism as leverage to increase governmental power and control at the expense of its citizens. But one undeniable aspect is the fact that two consecutive presidents have recast their presidential responsibilities, as Micah Zenko points out at Foreign Policy.

When asked last September if he personally chose which individual terrorist suspects could be targeted with lethal force, President Barack Obama gave a response that would have astounded the founding fathers: "What is absolutely true is that my first job, my most sacred duty, as president and commander in chief, is to keep the American people safe." This is false. As the presidential "Oath or Affirmation" in the Constitution reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As Zenko states, Obama should know better. After all, he spent more than a decade lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But his predecessor led the way, informing Americans that "safety" would trump rights.

George W. Bush told a cheering crowd at the 2004 Republican National Convention: "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people.

While on the campaign trail, Obama vowed to correct Bush's skewed priorities. But rather than follow through on that promise, he has gone the other direction, expanding on his inherited policies and defending various agencies accused of abuse. Unfortunately, once this mindset is in place, it is almost impossible to roll back. The policies it creates only move in one direction.

The essential and enduring feature of both post-9/11 presidents has been their shared contention that their core objective -- and by extension, that of the executive branch -- is to protect U.S. citizens from one particular form of harm: terrorist violence. Both success and failure at achieving this objective have justified the expansion of additional authorities and tools. If there are no terrorist attacks, then all policies in place must remain, but when terrorist plots are revealed or the rare attack occurs, then additional tools and secrecy are mandated.

The executive branch is a key part of the system of checks and balances this country's founders mandated in order to prevent the sort of mission creep and rights erosion occurring today. Instead of protecting the Constitution and their constituents, two consecutive presidents have relegated it to the background, preferring to pursue the unobtainable: safety and security.

Other government agencies are tasked with protecting the public. The executive branch is ultimately responsible for preventing abuses and excesses. Instead, this branch has willingly paved the way for a surveillance network that undermines protections and rights in exchange for vague assurances of security.

Filed Under: barack obama, constitution, george w. bush, nsa, nsa surveillance, public safety, terrorism