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

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#11

Post by swombat »

RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens.

If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.

In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#12

Post by pessimizer »

RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

If the government buys a ham sandwich, people will complain too. The balance is having principles and sticking to them until the people get rid of you.

The US voted against this crap in 2008. The new administration doubled down on it. Where is the balance?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#13

Post by breischl »

daughart wrote: post #8

Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.

They're not, but Obama was referring to a prior program that was basically equivalent. So by the definition that Obama himself was using at the time, these are wiretaps.

Also, check out the news on PRISM, which comes much closer to the common definition of wiretaps. I'd say his administration has pretty thoroughly broken that particular promise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#14

Post by freyr »

RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this.

And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#15

Post by bluetooth »

RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

> if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain

Who says this? Do you honestly think warrantless wiretaps are a valid form of defense?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#16

Post by scottmagdalein »

RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

Protect citizens in every way possible that doesn't encroach civil liberties. In those areas where civil liberties require that we be left vulnerable, citizens should be expected to protect themselves.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#17

Post by ry0ohki »

bluetooth wrote: post #15
RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

> if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain Who says this? Do you honestly think warrantless wiretaps are a valid form of defense?

People are blame crazy these days, they have to find someone at fault. Every single thing that happens recently from a Tornado to a bombing has 24 hour media asking who to blame.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#18

Post by pkfrank »

freyr wrote: post #14
RedneckBob wrote: post #7

Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?

I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this. And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe President Obama has "merely" continued the Bush-era policies and programs. Maybe they've extended, but that's because the initatives have matured and the technology has improved.

To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped.

Playing devil's advocate, somewhat, but there indeed lies the rub.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#19

Post by Shivetya »

but its okay if its a secret warrant?

Why do people think that throwing up quotes to the contrary matter to these people? I mean, its no different than listening to talk radio, just a days difference.

These guys do not care, they don't have to care, and they know it.

Post reply on HN