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

21–30 of 321 posts

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

#21

Post by swombat »

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.

From: "We will fight the illegal enslaving of millions of black people across the country."

To: "We have won the fight! Slavery is now legal. There is no more illegal slavery."

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

#22

Post by samolang »

monsterix wrote: post #5

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

I think there are plenty of quality leaders that exist. The problem is that there are too many cunning politicians that beat them in elections.

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

#24

Post by stonemetal »

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?

Due process. It is fully OK for them to go after the bad guys if they do it the right way. The right way isn't blanket spying just in case it is useful.

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

#25

Post by ollysb »

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 think the main issue is that the people have not been involved in any discussions regarding where this balance should be.

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

#27

Post by twoodfin »

pkfrank wrote: post #18
freyr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The job of President is almost certainly one of those things that you don't fully understand until you have to do it, but Candidate Obama probably should have been a little more circumspect in his rhetoric.

Especially when he'd already had to decide (rightly, IMHO) to support telecom immunity for "warrantless wiretapping" as a Senator.

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

#29

Post by Nursie »

samolang wrote: post #22
monsterix wrote: post #5

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

I think there are plenty of quality leaders that exist. The problem is that there are too many cunning politicians that beat them in elections.

And too many people that vote for the tall guy with the good hair, the sharp suit and a suite of meaningless platitudes.

Unfortunately we do get the politicians we deserve, though it's true they conspire to make us think our choices are limited.

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

#30

Post by daughart »

breischl wrote: post #13
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...

I voted for Obama twice and can't say I've been universally impressed with his decisions. I look forward to seeing how the story develops. Everyone involved has denied that this is an accurate description of the program, but then again that is probably what you expect.

That being said, it does seem somewhat reasonable to me that the US is monitoring metadata about who is contacting who overseas. If you are making calls to and receiving calls from numbers originating in Afghanistan that appear on CIA lists of contacts associated with anti-American activity, that information should be used to get a warrant to listen to the content of those communications.

On the other hand, I would feel better about the surveillance state if there were some evidence that it was effective. In reality most of this surveillance is probably a waste of resources and potentially distracting to real law enforcement. Our rights are obviously already interpreted through a "prism" - it would be beneficial if people could make utilitarian assessments of these practices.

Post reply on HN