Obama weighs in on NSA surveillance imbroglio President Obama has offered a defense of Verizon's handing over mobile phone metadata to the US National Security Agency and the allegations that the same agency's PRISM program is tapping into the servers of several major internet service providers. "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy …
"You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," Obama said
There's a difference between tapping someone on the arm verses shoving your hand up their ass and calling it an "inconvenience".
In the UK we kill just short of a thousand each year, in the USA it is ten times that. So let us try to get this down to zero and let us get terrorism down to zero as well, but accept that the fact of a free society is that cars and bleach bomb can and will kill.
Of course I will grieve if my loved one is taken by a car, or a terrorist strike, but this does not invalidate the argument.
Exactly, nobody asked for 100% security or 100% privacy. Most people realise both are unattainable.
I really doubt that this has increased security at all but it's certainly rolled back privacy. What the US should be demanding of its administration now is to say which group of people were put in prison for an terrorist plot and what evidence was used to put them in prison. They seem unable to do this. Wheeling out Obama to say something nice while he's off to see the Chinese president (ha) isn't enough.
"Exactly, nobody asked for 100% security or 100% privacy. Most people realise both are unattainable."
Actually I don't remember the public being "asked" about anything. The gov just did it. That's the real issue that these idiots in power are trying to dodge, and the issue that the American voter should be most worried and screaming about.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
Try saying that to big bubba in prison for me, oh yeah Prison, the safest place to be, and you still get raped. go jump off the nearest dock please, you won't be missed with that mentally retarded phrase.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
That also reminds me, you won't have a problem with handing over your birth certificate, driving license, and social security details, bank details, medical details, DVLA details, Tax details, Computer hard drives and USB drives.
What's that? you actually value your privacy? you must be a FUCKING Terrorist! Get outta here!
The real sad thing is that the Patriot Act was enacted into law under the Bush administration. Many years ago, I read an article that every email sent in the US went through 20 government data centers looking for words like "bomb", "ghad", etc. I also read that phone calls were being scanned for people using the same words. The real laugh is that Obama can't change this law. It must be changed by Congress and approved by him So far, President obama can't get his appointments passed by Congress and I doubt that he can change/scrap this law. My real question to you extremist-conservatives is where were you when the Patriot Act was passed and why didn't you scream bloody murder then????????????
I was perplexed as well, at first. I believe 'ghad' to either be a deliberate misspelling of jihad in an attempt to obfuscate his messages from keyword driven surveillance software or it could mean property once belonging to or very similar to previous property of a 'gangsta': ex. Ghad a car like that once except it had 20" spinners on.
Alternatively, since he obfuscated his meaning from those he was attempting to communicate with, the author may simply be an idiot.
1) I'm sure they never got a ghad" hit.
2) Bomb you say? How about these?
bombard
bombarded
bombardier
bombardiers
bombarding
bombardment
bombardments
bombardon
bombardons
bombards
bombast
bombastic
bombastically
bombasts
bombax
bombazine
bombazines
bombe
bombed
bomber
bombers
bombes
bombesin
bombesins
bombinate
bombinated
bombinates
bombinating
bombination
bombinations
bombing
bombings
bombload
bombloads
bombproof
bombs
bombshell
bombshells
bombsight
bombsights
bombycid
bombycids
bombyx
bombyxes
cabomba
cabombas
divebomb
divebombed
divebombing
divebombs
firebomb
firebombed
firebombing
firebombs
letterbomb
letterbombs
mailbomb
mailbombed
mailbombing
mailbombs
superbomb
superbomber
superbombers
superbombs
"My real question to you extremist-conservatives is where were you when the Patriot Act was passed and why didn't you scream bloody murder then????????????"
Simple.
It was introduced a very short time after 9/11/01 and is very big.
The Legislature is not immune to mob hysteria "Something must be done. America must be protected etc."
It's suspiciously large and complex nature (and the speed with which it sprang fully formed) is part of the reason background to the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theory. You definitely got the idea someone had been working on an "undermine all constitutional checks and balances (and scrap probable cause) act" for some time and 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to introduce it.
I agree, it is far too complex to have been drafted while the entire country was still in chaos. I've read the entire act and referenced acts and amendments several times and the level of completion is extraordinarily high: Too high for something written in house (ha see what I did there).
Very few 'lawmakers' write the laws anymore. They sponsor legislation written by trade groups and think tanks. In 2011 something like 93% of all legislation that was passed into law was composed wholly or partly by 3rd parties with no elected authority. What they get is far beyond their average level of comprehension and they are simply too busy fund raising to read such lengthy and boring things.
I don't think there was any 9/11 conspiracy, but as you say those events created a perfect opportunity to crank up the pork barrel machinery.
"The other idiot would ha ve also done the same, the difference would be that he wouldn't even try to justify his actions!"
No, he too voted for the Act that is permitting such actions so aggressively. All them are guilty, and any of them acting shocked is equivalent to admitting they don't know what they sign into law.
Here's McCain...
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
"[Obama] admitted that when he first took office, he was wary of such surveillance. His changed his mind, however."
Once he found out how cool it was to be able to use it against his opponents, and to extend his own power.
"I hope you won't notice nothing's changed and how transparent my lies have been."
Lots of false positives (e.g., people who have relatives in the terrorist nest du jour calling to wish someone happy birthday or check on health issues or whatever people call family to do) will keep people running around chasing shadows and eventually someone's going to ask for "deliverables" to justify the expense -- what could possibly go wrong? Buttle, Tuttle, it's all the same.
Re: "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," Obama said -- it sounds like the choice has already been made for us, sir, but the belated fig leaf of concern is still quite touching.
The job of U.S. President has two primary components in its official job description: To uphold the Constitution and protect the citizens from harm from other nations. You can't fulfill just one requirement and be considered to be succeeding, you must fulfill all the requirements simultaneously. If you are unable to meet the basic requirements you are unfit for the role (that goes for any job).
I hate to be so harsh, I voted for the guy and I even contributed money for both of his elections but feel like I got fucked and didn't even get cab fare for the trip home. Besides, these policies didn't stop the bombings in Boston so they obviously aren't working. The answer is to back down and design another approach or risk ending up like MS & Win8. (Last sentence for the IT tie in).
However, Obama at least *promised* positive change, in contrast to my "duly elected representatives [who] have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing", where nearly all the possible candidates were so despicable that my only choice was writing in third parties. ("Write to your Congressman", indeed!)
Yeh, well, were you expecting something amazing the second time? I too voted for him the first election, but even before his first term was over, he faded into the puppet gallery for me. After an actual honest read of his healthcare plan (or is it his?), the conspiracy side of me sees what he has been put in power for (tax penalties for not having healthcare...really?)
As far as this particular privacy issue, I can't say I blame him directly. I can't say that because 12 years ago congress put in place the PATRIOT ACT for these very practices, so I'm just not shocked that a president, any president, has activated and utilized these practices. However if these practices continue, I'm not sure if designing another approach is feasible, and a tried and true MS approach may be needed...Crash & Reboot.
"I was willing to hope (haha) that he would change (haha again) and man up and kick a little ass since he had his 'mandate of the people'. Not only did he not man up, he's let his government run wild and resorted to the cowardly tactics of legal manipulation."
With respect I'm not sure you realize that the in some ways the President is like the Queen, rather than the Prime Minister of the UK.
In the UK laws ultimately require "Royal Assent." She says "No" it's not a law. But that would probably mean the PM and his parties days in charge (or currently in coalition) were numbered.
Michale Moore, the Tea Party and RA Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government" tell you what has to be done to affect change. Look at how low the turnout is for such elections. A few percent who are both angry and motivated could get them thrown out. Did your Congressman/Senator vote for the USA PATRIOT act? If so perhaps when election time comes round you it's time for a little "regime change."
I do realize the limits placed on the President (and why they are a Good Thing) but the role still possesses enormous power. He isn't using what powers he does have to exercise much authority. I couldn't stand Bush mkII or his policies but the little fella was an effective leader, he got stuff done.
My previous Representative voted for the PATRIOT act the first time but not for its renewals after the sunset clause kicked in. My new Rep hasn't had an opportunity to vote on it yet. I sent her a letter (traditional letter) asking her position on the Act and her position in the new surveillance revelations, her response will dictate where my money and where my vote goes next cycle.
I actually had hopes for the Tea Party but along with a minority of intelligent people they've also attracted the fringe and uncompromising single issue activists with limited potential for leadership. I went to a few of their meetings in Northern Virginia where I live and it was kind of scary: Too extreme.
I would like to see a viable third party get some traction but those that exist are proposing too much change too fast. It took centuries for this county to get into this mess and changing course is going to take a while to accomish. Being too abrupt will guarantee a quick return to the 'safe' system we have today.
"They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity," Obama said, claiming that the surveillance is conducted "under very strict supervision by all three branches of government, and they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of US citizens and US residents."
Don't be ridiculous....that's what PRISM is for!
Didn't Obama get elected to counter the Bush Cowboy approach to international relations?
Not only are all of the laws from Bush still in effect, Obama's administration have increased them to a Gestapo like level.
Anyone else expecting Graham Chapman in a Brigadier uniform to step in and stop this because its gotten too silly?
That's what is so terribly disappointing, at least with Bush Jr. he did exactly what he said on the tin: No surprises. Obama was supposed to be cultured and more civilized. Instead it is looking like Obama is the worst kind of person; disingenuous and deliberately misleading as to his true character. A real let down.
That so many Americans have been allowed themselves to be duped by the fear of terrorists. It was bad enough when it started out as warrantless wiretaps to watch Americans and their overseas calls. Now it's everybody calling anywhere on every wireless network, plus their IP voice/data traffic, plus their social media, and I'd have to say that there is a 90%+ chance that an as-yet undisclosed program is watching our wireline traffic.
Lately there have been a number of Nixon vs. Obama comparisons in the media, so here's mine:
Nixon era: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"
Obama era: We have to destroy freedom in order to save it
And it's not like we have a great option to Obama's cynicism. Let's face it, the Demos and Republicans are the Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum of the surveillance state....
"Americans ... duped by the fear of terrorists"
excuse me .. out of the 1000s of Americans I know and have known since 9/11/01 ( or ever ) .. haven't met ONE that has a 'fear of terrorists' .. NEVER have heard a regular citizen say they are afraid to go to the local market .. or a sporting event .. no fear of crossing bridges .. no fear of flying ( because of terrorists )
a good majority have however .. been duped into thinking the liberals are there "for the people" when *all* US politicians .. with sadly few exceptions .. are there for themselves and their military-industrial-bankster-megacorp buddies ..
With Bush and the Republicans .. you'd get a "Let's see how we can fool them today" type statement every 3-4 weeks .. with Obama's administration .. every speech now contains multiple incredulous statements and the rest of the prose is on the order of:
"We can all agree that sunny days at 72F is where we want to go and I will fight the partisan divisions to ensure, for future generations .. that the sky continues to be the blue."
I expect to be flamed for this, so, pardon me while I put on my Nomex suit.
There, now you can flame away.
Let us go back to end of WW2, Hitler was dead, Germany was defeated, we (that being the USA) nuked Japan twice, and that bloody war was over. Or was it? An awful lot of money got spent in the fight to defeat the Fascists. And the military-industrial complex took notice. President Eisenhower WARNED US about it, and no one paid any attention.
Rising out of the ashes, was a new villain: Communism, and the spread of the Red Menace across parts of Europe and Asia. That begat a new type of 'war', dubbed The Cold War. "We got to stop those goddam Russkies" paraphrases the sentiment of many politicians of the time. And the defense industry LOVED IT!!!. Politicians do not want to be seen as "soft on Communism", so they bought into the defense industry lie, hook, line and sinker. And the ($$$$BILLIONS) flowed.
The USA got itself tied up in two Asian wars (Korea and Viet Nam), and LOST both. Now, someone who is slightly awake will spout out that we didn't LOSE Korea. To that, I will say: "BULLSHIT!!!" Does the antics of their current leader suggest that we won?? If we WON, he would not be in power. Then there is that disgrace called Viet Nam, where the civilian leadership was too goddammed worried about 'image'. We should have either fought to win, or got the fuck out of there. If we had done the latter, who knows how many of the 58,000+ we lost there would have lived. But the defense industry kept raking in the $$$BILLIONS.
Fast forward to the fall of the Soviet Union. You might hope that with the demise of the Big Bad Bear, some of those $BILLIONS squandered on defense spending just might get re-directed into more useful purposes, rather than be squandered on weapons of war. You can bet your sweet ASS that the defense industry was going to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to keep that GRAVY TRAIN running. Along the way, the Cunts In America get us tangled up with all kinds of dictators and despots. That's OK, as long as they are OUR dictators and despots. You do know who we allied with in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets, don't you???? Once we no longer needed them, they became expendable, and suddenly had an excuse to want to extract revenge. Now, we have been tied up in more war for the past 10+ years, and now it is $$$$TRILLIONS of GDP being squandered on the defense industry, and WEAPONS OF WAR. Isn't it about time that shit STOP!!!! With the winding down of those wars, the defense industry needs a new villain, a mythological villain called a terrorist.
So, let me pose this one simple question:
WHO has the MOST to lose if the $$$TRILLIONS now being squandered on weapons of war and defense spending were to suddenly vanish???
All of this bullshit about running around looking for terrorists is nothing more than a smokescreen for the defense industry to keep its GRAVY TRAIN running at full speed. And government officials (of BOTH parties) are willing accomplices.
Congress: representatives of the People bought and paid for by the special interests.
Let the flaming begin.
EDIT TO Now, someone who is slightly awake will spout out that we didn't LOSE Korea. To that, I will say: "BULLSHIT!!!" Does the antics of their current leader OF NORTH KOREA suggest that we won?? If we WON, he would not be in power.
I needed to make it clear who I was referring to when I initially specified current leader, lest I piss off any South Koreans.
ICON awarded for my FAILing to be clear in the first post about who the "current leader" referred to.
Supposedly the goal of going to war is to WIN, and defeat your opponent.
Well, considering that North Korea has continued to exist since the armistice was signed in 1953, I certainly do not consider it a WIN, at best a 60 year old stalemate, one that has gone for too long.
IMHO, we can thank our friends at the UN for that.
I NEVER said they weren't.
BUT(T), the continued existence of North Korea is an overgrown, swollen pustule on the backside of humanity, and should have been popped a long time ago.
South Koreans would not have had to endure 60 years worth of sabre rattling from North Korea's demented leaders had the war in Korea been WON.
NOW, do you get my point!???
"We are going to have to make some choices as a society". Just who does "we" refer to in this case? Seems the public had no say in the matter as it was all super-secret in a so-called democratic country. Now it's come to light, the folk responsible are desperately trying to play it down. Just what other fiendish, "top secret" schemes are being perpetrated in the name of national security?
I call it "the royal non-inclusive we" - the "we" that is used by people in power to mean "YOU<plural>", and does NOT include the person speaking.
"I'm afraid WE are all going to have to work overtime and weekends to get this project out the door - whoops! my tee-time is in 15, so nose to the grindstone everybody!"
"I'm afraid WE will all have to cut our energy usage - whoops! here's my limo and 5 escort vehicles, gotta dash!"
"That so many Americans have been allowed themselves to be duped by the fear of terrorists."
Actually, I think that is what they want you to believe :-/. I either don't hang out in the right circles (or wrong), or I've just managed to somehow dodge every person who thinks the terrorist threat is at these publicized levels. I honestly think the government just publicizes it that way to get away with more than they should. The government throws around the word "attack" so much that I'm starting to wonder what it would be called if an actual war broke out on our soil, because the word "invasion" just doesn't imply enough fear for government standards.
They are (or were) Chechens, moron. The Chechens are no friends of the Russians. Lookup the Moscow theatre hostage crisis for an example. They went via Turkey, the NATO gateway for Chechen terrorists.
The Russians warned the US about the two individuals, which the US appears to have ignored.
If either of those two blokes were alive, it would be a whole different story. Tricky Dicky would be looking for Democrats and their secrets, while Mc the Knife would have been finding commies by the minute.
Give people the tools and someone will come along and abuse them. There's already evidence over at the IRS this month. Imagine if they knew everything!
Is the President telling the whole truth? NSA has been able to look at all US cell phone call content for years. They do it routinely and legally overseas. For a while they pretended to folllow FISA, and not look at US stuff, but got around that with "Echelon" which gave the raw data to the UK, who did the interception and fed it back as "legal foreign-sourced intelligence".
Bush abandoned even that pretense.
This post has been deleted by its author
Regarding PRISM and surveillance targeting. With so many services already hosted in the USA. Don't expect intelligence analysts to correctly decipher whether or not you are a US citizen. Its just not possible. For instance how many users of said services set their country of origin correctly instead of letting it default to the United States? Using IP is no reliable indicator because of proxies and people travelling. So some will frequently fall into the net and be mis-flagged. You'd need substantial logs to backtrack. Equally expect data quality to be awful leading to wrong hits, false positives and ample cases of mistaken identify.
For instance there is no enforcement of usernames in Yahoo, Hotmail / Outlook or Google mail, never mind Google+ or Facebook. Regarding the later I've never used my real name and never been asked by the system for proof, no matter what their policy says. People better hope their real name and online aliases don't ever overlap with someone on a watch list though, or things could get messy!
As a non-US citizen I am appalled that Obama and such consider it alright to breach my privacy.
But more significantly... why would any non-US business use any US based or owned service provider , any cloud/data storage service or email service. Clearly any or all US internet services are wide open for extra legal snooping.
It means any confidentiality clause in contracts is worthless when dealing with the US.
It means any data transiting the US is open to NSA screening.
Quite simply the US is an untrustworthy partner.
And anyone who believes it is only about security and not economic espionage is naive and in any case could any business take the risk that their of their material being scooped up by an agency of a competitor's government.
Am I angry ..yes ..not because I am surprised or because I am a likely target but because the US does not respect the privacy of anyone and most certainly not the RIGHTS of non citizens.
I may not be American but I have rights too Mr Obama!!
The Verizon (and other?) phone and PRISM programs clearly contradict the plain meaning of the fourth amendment, and if the Patriot Act authorized them, it is sad that it has not been challenged and overturned. It is sadder that a president who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" authorized these programs, and that another, who took the same oath, continued and extended them. More: hundreds of our elected senators and representatives passed this atrocious act and, having heard quarterly reports for the last half-dozen years of its yield, they kept their silence almost to a person, reapproved it, and permitted it to continue.
All of them - presidents, congressmen, senators, and the judges who issued the warrants - should be ashamed, as should the U. S. press for being scooped by the Guardian. I am sure we will see investigations and be treated to indignant speeches, apologies, and justifications from all of them. I am not prepared to believe a single word of it.
And the People - I do not exclude myself - should be ashamed for electing them or acquiescing in their election.
The Verizon (and other?) phone and PRISM programs contradict the plain meaning of the fourth amendment, and if the Patriot Act authorized them, it is sad that it has not been challenged and overturned. It is sadder that a president who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" authorized it, and that another, who took the same oath continued and extended it. More: hundreds of our elected senators and representatives passed this atrocious act and, having heard quarterly reports for the last half-dozen years of its yield, they kept their silence almost to a person, reauthorized it, and permitted it to continue.
All of them - presidents, congressmen, senators, and the judges who issued the warrants - should be ashamed, as should the U. S. press for being scooped by the Guardian. I am sure we will see investigations and be treated to indignant speeches, apologies, and justifications from all of them. I am not prepared to believe a single word of it.
And the People - I do not exclude myself - should be ashamed for electing them or acquiescing in their election.
Translation: the deaths of 2900 innocent people is too high a price to pay for freedom.
Of course the rest of the world was prepared to have 55 million die for freedom in WWII.
That represents one 9-11 per day, seven per week, 365 per year, for 50 years and 4 months.
55 million regrettable deaths, but a price the world was prepared to pay for freedom.
I think that most of us, if we knew in advance that was the price of winning WWII, we go through the whole thing again, loose that same 55 million.
(Of course if those 2900 innocent people had not been Americans the price would be acceptable to them.)
Obama said we couldn't have 100% privacy, he didn't admit he was going to give us 0% privacy.
They're getting info on every cell phone call. They're getting access to all iCloud, Amazon, and Skydrive storage.
0% privacy.
I'll add, I do NOT agree with those trying to lay the blame for this solely at Obama's feet for two reasons:
1. Surveillance under Bush may have revealed information to the intelligence community that enabled them to prevent Obama doing what he wants, in other words they might be coercing him.
2. Heavy widespread surveillance is neither a left- nor a right-wing thing. It is not on the right-wing/left-wing axis.
And you can see this for yourself. Communist governments, nationalist socialist governments and right-wing dictatorships all use heavy widespread surveillance.
Deep universal surveillance is on the extremist/moderate axis.
Extremist governments need to suppress their own populations, so they need to do surveillance on those populations.
Extremist intelligence agencies need to prevent interference in their extreme activities from other branches of government, so successful information gathering about the foibles of powerful people in other branches of government is an essential pre-requisite for deep universal surveillance.
See when I heard Obama's statement that this was something passed continuously since 2006 by the US Elected officials I thought jesus so they can work together? Good to see party lines don't matter when it's eroding privacy.
On a note, once in a bar arguement I went to the car for my copy of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights (I ordered a box load for about 1.50 each online)... privacy is not guaranteed only the right to unwarranted searches. In my mind collecting data on any US citizen's calls the who/when/where is unwarranted searching, but privacy is simply not explicitly covered. One might suggest the Framer's failed to recognize a distinction between their private belongings and their privacy. Dunno maybe they thought a person's location and hearsay information was simply public knowledge.
I'd like to know if we as the public in the form of the Justice System can make use of this data in tracking the location and whereabouts of any individual involved in a criminal case or suspected criminal case. Such as seeing what congressional members make use of scandalous clubs or bathrooms. ha!
"I'd like to know if we as the public in the form of the Justice System can make use of this data in tracking the location and whereabouts of any individual involved in a criminal case or suspected criminal case. Such as seeing what congressional members make use of scandalous clubs or bathrooms. ha!"
Something like this hace been covered by El Reg and IIRC the Supreme Court ruled sticking a GPS tracker on a car did need a court order as your location is a private matter.
Someone mentioned this above...
Well, having three MEEEELION American citizens of voting age in prison at any point in time probably cuts a couple of percentage points off the Election Day turn-out.
Crazy.
It's almost 10x the incarceration rate of Canada. Seriously.
'You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy'
None of this `security' will protect you from being blown-up in the street. And if the cost of security is to live in an open-air prison, I'de prefer to take my chances with the terrorists. Security is being used as a pretext to yet extend the state security apparatus *against* their own citizens. What's ironic is we have a democratic dupe removing the last vestiges of a free and democratic society.
"The very word secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies"
I don't know why this is such a surprise to anyone. After 9/11 attacks, Bush introduced the Patriot act which allowed telco's and isp's to snoop our communications. Under that law, consumer notification that any type of surveillance was taking place was illegal. I wrote my representative and told Hillary Clinton that I was not crazy about this. The response was this was for our own good.
Now this is news? It's not news. People are just starting to wake up that we gave up our right to privacy to feel good. This is the dilemma of a free society - snoop and be safe, respect privacy and bad guys go undetected.
It has nothing to do with Obama. This is all old news.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
