Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#21

Post by bwindels »

steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

> The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs

Why do you say it's hard to believe he doesn't agree with these programs?

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#22

Post by cmdkeen »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. He definitely had enough power, but as steve19 points, he could have estimated that such actions would have probably lowered his chances for reelection.

I disagree. In theory he has enough power, but if you look at how the whole system works, you don't get to become a president if you aren't a) owing a lot of people favours, and b) a kind of person that would be disruptive. If you're the uncontrollable type that would pose the risk to the status quo, you won't be allowed to rise high enough to become a president.

Except this is Obama at the peak of his hope and change moment, he'd just been comprehensively elected as an alternative to the Bush years. This was the perfect opportunity to essentially blame even more things on Bush and even cement his position, this was an opportunity to bury the GOP if he had broken this news. Ironically he was in a position to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize if he had taken action against this, Guantanamo and the CIA torture programme.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#23

Post by bwindels »

cubancigar11 wrote: post #16
TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. In theory he has enough power, but if you look at how the whole system works, you don't get to become a president if you aren't a) owing a lot of people favours, and b) a kind of person that would be disruptive. If you're the uncontrollable type that would pose the risk to the status quo, you won't be allowed to rise high enough to become a president.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected. That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guil…

> He doesn't owe anyone anything

Candidates can and almost all do take an unlimited amount of money from private donors to fund their campaigns, likely in exchange for favourable legislation. Obama gathered $1072.6m like this in 2012. Obama owes his donors big time I would say.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#24

Post by junto »

yc1010 wrote: post #13

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become "untouchable"

This is basically how the "whip" system works in British politics.

There is an actual official post in the party called "Chief Whip". [1]

In the original series "The House of Cards" from the BBC in the 1990's [2], Ian Richarson plays the chief whip. Whilst his primary role is officially supposed to be the formal request of party members to attend votes, he is busy collating secret dossiers on the various party member's dubious personal lives that (when required) can be used as leverage against them.

The NSA bulk surveillance programs are this system in automatic overdrive. The enable the powerful (who control these systems) to abuse and corrupt democracy. The only "safeguards" being a secret court, with secret judgements by judges that can also be corrupted.

I'll give the NSA and the US one thing. They appear to give (at least) lip service to the idea of privacy of American citizens. In the case of the UK, the government is desperate to monitor it's own citizens' internet activities first and foremost. What's sad is that the UK public have pretty much passed the point of no return.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Whip

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#25

Post by azernik »

junto wrote: post #24
yc1010 wrote: post #13

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become "untouchable"

This is basically how the "whip" system works in British politics. There is an actual official post in the party called "Chief Whip". [1] In the original series "The House of Cards" from the BBC in the 1990's [2], Ian Richarson plays the chief whip. Whilst his primary role is officially supposed to be the formal request of party members to attend votes, he is busy collating secret dossiers on the various party member…

In the American version too, that's the protagonist's role - the Majority Whip. In practice, in both the American and British systems, the Whip's actual power springs not from blackmail but from the more prosaic threat to withhold party support for a candidate's reelection.

What makes the British Whips (and party discipline in general) so much more powerful is that in the UK, candidates are almost completely dependent on their party for campaign financing. By contrast, in the US a candidate usually gets campaign donations directly from supporters, so a competitor from the same party supported by the party establishment is less likely to win. This is why, for example, the Tea Party in the US took the form that it did (insurgent candidates competing in primaries against the establishment's choice), whereas in the British system equivalent grassroots insurgencies are all-or-nothing affairs that target the central decision-making bodies and leadership of the party (think Jeremy Corbyn).

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#26

Post by icegreentea »

cmdkeen wrote: post #22
TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. In theory he has enough power, but if you look at how the whole system works, you don't get to become a president if you aren't a) owing a lot of people favours, and b) a kind of person that would be disruptive. If you're the uncontrollable type that would pose the risk to the status quo, you won't be allowed to rise high enough to become a president.

Except this is Obama at the peak of his hope and change moment, he'd just been comprehensively elected as an alternative to the Bush years. This was the perfect opportunity to essentially blame even more things on Bush and even cement his position, this was an opportunity to bury the GOP if he had broken this news. Ironically he was in a position to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize if he had taken action against this, G…

Obama didn't have infinite political capital. We was dealing with some pretty heavy things in the aftermath of the stock market crash - stuff that was potentially alienating his own base, while also trying to push through his own legacy change (Obamacare). All of this through his peak popularity. If he had tried to squash the wiretapping then, it likely would have overextended him and saw his health care reforms squashed.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#27

Post by vlehto »

mjevans wrote: post #5
steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…

I think being willing to do the job increases chances of success a lot. Also some popular support seems to be indication of reasonable person.

But when you go beyond Dunbar number, seeking popularity turns into game. Then it is matter of playing the game well. Which doesn't necessarily correlate with anything else.

Random selection from people who gathered 100 endorsements should get somewhat good results.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#29

Post by forgetsusername »

mjevans wrote: post #5
steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…

>It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective

I truly don't believe this.

Any popular uprising that gets large enough, or loud enough, has the capacity to demand change. Sure, the corporate, moneyed interests will push their agenda as hard as possible to try to sway opinion (which isn't always misaligned with the public good, by the way). But at the end of the day politicians will do what they can to save their jobs. Most of them are just ordinary people, after all.

The fact of the matter is, the story of surveillance was sold to us as, "We're protecting you from another 9/11!", and there are many people who really believe that. It might even be true, who knows. Outside of the technorati in SV and urban centers (who, ironically, created the surveillance system), most people really don't give a damn about their digital privacy. Yet. If or when a sensational story happens that involves the "common man" being boned by surveillance, the tide will shift. I'd put money on it.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#30

Post by Arnt »

mjevans wrote: post #5
steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…

Which raises a fascinating question: Why not say so?

This isn't a rhetorical way of saying that there aren't any. I expect that there are valid reasons to be silent in such a position. although I can't think of what they might be. Perhaps the chances of success in six months seems better if he's silent now than if he talks loudly now? But what could that assessment be based on?

Post reply on HN