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

131–140 of 321 posts

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

#131

Post by montecarl »

jshen wrote: post #98
arcadeparade wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste. Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign…

He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.

You're right, but the question to ask is "are current leaders more than a product?".

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

#133

Post by darkarmani »

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?

> 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.

That's an inane justification for destroying our constitution. If people complain either way, but only one way destroys the constitution, why choose the worse one? Why would people complain if gov't prevents an attack? That makes no sense. I'm not sure you can call it "preventing an attack" when it's the gov't that is attacking us.

> Where is the balance?

There is no balance. The gov't is off the rails when it comes to expanding their budget and justifying expending law enforcement powers for the miniscule chance of a terrorist attack.

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

#134

Post by darkarmani »

jmagoon wrote: post #80

The oddest thing about this is that people seem totally fine that corporations control all of their personal data (and use it to develop new revenue streams), but if the government gets that data (that already exists), then there's a serious problem. What?

Which one can you opt out of?

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

#136

Post by r0s »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #103
edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

> To take on this "I don't vote because its a sham" mentality is to play right into their little game. When enough people fall for it that's when it becomes a reality.

This could apply to the opposite perspective just as well.

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

#137

Post by rayiner »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #85
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

The reality of voting is that you pick the least worst choice. "Representative democracy" isn't democracy. It's bloodless regime change. You get a choice of who you can work with. Actual liberatory politics begins the day after the election, and involves things like pressure groups, petitions, protests and lobbying.

You're begging the question. Why are the choices the way they are?

You see a status quo where neither major party cares about electronic privacy. Is it because there is a vast conspiracy between media and government to only present these two viewpoints? Is it because huge amounts of money go into getting people to support NSA surveillance? Or is it because opposing NSA surveillance is not an issue that reliably yields votes?

Which voting bloc can you capture by supporting the scaling back of NSA surveillance? Angry nerds? Not a big demographic. If your issue doesn't get old people, blacks and hispanics, religious conservatives, teachers, union workers, small business owners, or one of the other big demographics like that to go out and vote based solely on that issue, then there is not enough votes in that issue for any politician to care about it.

And the thing is, that's arguably how democracy should work. Why should politicians in a democracy cater to the pet issues of an ideological minority?

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

#138

Post by codex »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #114
jbindel wrote: post #46

Is the headline trying to mislead? A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless. However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records ; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

Source? The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S. Even then, a secret court order is needed.

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

#139

Post by tlrobinson »

edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

If you don't vote there's nothing distinguishing your non-vote from that of an apathetic non-voter. At least go and vote for a non-Republicrat, or even just write in your own name...

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

#140

Post by amalcon »

flexd wrote: post #112
edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

Don't you usually have the option to submit a 'I do not think any of these people should lead our country'-vote? We can do that in Norway.

Sort of. In the U.S. there's no explicit option, but you can always write in Darth Vader or leave that section blank.
Post reply on HN