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

251–260 of 321 posts

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

#251

Post by wheaties »

grellas wrote: post #170
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,…

The question is not so much whether you vote (most people will) but what you vote for. The U.S. system of government is deeply rooted in an English common law and constitutional framework. In its U.S. variant, it became a constitutional republic, with the broad idea being that power within the government is divided by design so as to help prevent its abuse. That means a federal system premised on the legal principle…

+1 to you sir.

When people ask who I voted for they make funny faces. I vote across parties lines because I don't think either party has my allegiance. I disagree with individuals and subscribe to cross cutting concerns of which neither party wholly captures.

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

#252

Post by jshen »

montecarl wrote: post #131
jshen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?".

I'd ask a different question. When we vote for our leaders the way we do, are we creating a system that requires a marketing campaign to win against an opponent with a marketing campaign?

Or another question, why did the person I replied to earlier imply that marketing is inherently bad? Is it?

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

#254

Post by veritas20 »

I have a problem with the article and title on 2 levels. 1) It identifies a "bad" guy. In a two party system the other party is the "bad" guy no matter how or whom signed legislation into law. If you identify yourself as a democrat or republican, then you are part of the problem. It's unrealistic to think that you'll ever agree with a single person on all issues let alone an entire political group. 2) It does not address the real problem. We have a problem with add-ons in legislation that have absolutely nothing to do with the essence or spirit of the bill. These egregious actions occur all the time, no matter who is in charge. We need to rid our political system of money and lobbyists. Oh, and by the way, a bill that probably mostly affects tech companies, the Immigration Bill, contains the authority to create a biometric database. Note "authority to create" and not "setup a database". News outlets are mincing words.

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

#255

Post by ars »

robomartin wrote: post #169

At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for. Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhe…

That would make it worse.

Instead they should lower the voting age to 14. The only way to get the life experience you are looking for is to DO it!

Despite the common belief, it does NOT automatically come with age. The earlier you start, the better the results are (since younger brains learn faster and are more flexible), and the longer a person has to gain experience.

The earlier people get used to participating in government the more likely it will become a lifelong habit.

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

#256

Post by harryh »

john_b wrote: post #235
rayiner wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are free to disagree that privacy in some meaningful sense is not a human right I don't disagree that privacy in some meaningful sense is a human right. I disagree that a "privacy" right that is broad enough to encompass information about me collected by a private company based on my voluntary use of its service (i.e. phone call records) rises to the level of human right. To me, that's instead a matter of balan…

Not sure why you're being downvoted. One of the main problems with privacy today is that your rights to privacy are typically enumerated in lengthy terms of service or user agreements that can and do change without notice. If these documents truly do enumerate "rights" they shouldn't be so easily changed whenever the company finds it convenient or profitable. What you initially agreed to was a 20 page document writte…

It seems to me that we do have "societally accepted norms, and possibly laws, regarding privacy." The norms/laws are that the information you share freely with Google/FB/Verizon/etc can be passed along to the gov't in support of national security.

These norms/laws aren't arbitrary, they're based on the views of the majority of the citizens of this country, expressed through the democratic process.

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

#257

Post by arh68 »

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.

Here's a thought, though: if Google's data were tapped, would Google Voice phone records be within their jurisdiction?

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

#258

Post by varjag »

bjustin wrote: post #105
freyr wrote: post #6

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.

In his defense, President Obama knows lot more non-public information than ('08) candidate Obama did. That said, dragnet surveillance of US citizens is still heinous.

The life of an average American is in no more imminent danger than it was 50 years ago, when this technology was simply unimaginable.

Just because it's possible to do something, doesn't mean it has to be done, although I realize it's not how it works with governments.

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

#259

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #250
dragonwriter wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> National security" falls under the umbrella of "common Defence" (which appears twice in the Constitution). Both in reference to the purpose of the Constitution and the scope of purposes supported by Congress taxing power, but neither reference is to a general federal blanket power with regard to "common defense".

Powers under the Constitution are generally read to be complete within a particular domain except to the extent they are counter-balanced by affirmative rights. See Gibbons v. Ogden ("If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects...").

Yes, but you missed the part that "common Defense" occurs in the preamble discussing purpose, not powers, and in a phrase limiting the purposes of the Taxing power. Its not itself an enumerated Congressional power (Congress does have more narrow enumerated defense related powers), so its irrelevant, in discussing it, that grants of power to Congress are generally plenary except within express limitations.
Post reply on HN