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

Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#61

Post by D_Alex »

threeseed wrote: post #30
Brushfire wrote: post #16

This is pretty amusing, but they've just made a classic apologists mistake. Either they need all this access and funding to surveil a large number of dangerous people, or they dont need either to surveil such a small number of people. If it only resulted in 300 phone numbers to track, then sure, maybe the privacy violations weren't as bad (hypothetically). But that argument then puts the whole program at a ridiculous…

But that argument then puts the whole program at a ridiculous cost to threat ratio. Sorry but this is just nonsense. Major terrorist acts e.g. 9/11 have a devastating impact on the economy. It results in a country-wide drop in consumer spending, consumer confidence, business spending, business confidence, hiring etc. As well as locally in areas like tourism. It alone accounted for a 1.1% drop in the third quarter GDP…

>Major terrorist acts e.g. 9/11 have a devastating impact on the economy.

Citation needed!

9/11 did indeed have a devastating impact on the economy - because of the very poorly thought out response of the Bush administration.

On the other hand, Norway's response to their worst ever act of terrorism was as follows:

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation," he said. (from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-ye... )

Do you think the US would be better off today if they adopted such a policy - instead of the Patriot Act?

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#62

Post by bdcravens »

D_Alex wrote: post #61
threeseed wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that argument then puts the whole program at a ridiculous cost to threat ratio. Sorry but this is just nonsense. Major terrorist acts e.g. 9/11 have a devastating impact on the economy. It results in a country-wide drop in consumer spending, consumer confidence, business spending, business confidence, hiring etc. As well as locally in areas like tourism. It alone accounted for a 1.1% drop in the third quarter GDP…

>Major terrorist acts e.g. 9/11 have a devastating impact on the economy. Citation needed! 9/11 did indeed have a devastating impact on the economy - because of the very poorly thought out response of the Bush administration. On the other hand, Norway's response to their worst ever act of terrorism was as follows: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not un…

To be fair, some of the post-9/11 policies did have an impact. However, don't discount the real effects the attack itself had, before the knee even had a chance to jerk.

I was at Sabre (spin-off of American Airlines, owner of Travelocity, creator of travel agency software) at the time, in HR's development group. (Actually that group had been acquired by EDS, but same group, same role, different name on the paycheck) Within a trading day of the attack, they lost 50% in market cap. We went from massive projects to calculate performance based compensation to doing it on a simple spreadsheet. Many lost their jobs, including me.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#63

Post by mindcrime »

ahallock wrote: post #36
JacksonGariety wrote: post #34

> "As everybody who has been associated with the program's said if we had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego - two hijackers - able to use that program, that capability against the target, we might have been able to prevent 9/11" These politicians believe it's worth invading everyone's privacy in order to prevent an attack on American soil. That's insane. A surveillance state is far more of…

I would say surveillance at this level is almost a form of terrorism. I don't not feel safe using phone and web applications. I'm also fearful to post libertarian-leaning comments or comments that could be deemed "anti-government" for fear of being targeted in the future. It may be irrational and slightly paranoid, but I think history has shown us not to trust people with extraordinary power like this.

Well, I'm still overtly anti-government, anti-NSA, pro voluntaryist, pro market-anarchism, pro libertarian, pro anarcho-capitalism, etc. If they're listening to this conversion, well... fuck it, I refuse to be censored. The worst they can really do is kill me. shrug I wasn't planning to live forever anyway.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#64

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mpyne wrote: post #52
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intercepting messages doesn't violate the First Amendment. What about all that stuff about chilling effects and anonymous speech?

You mean like how the KKK and WBC were brutally subjugated by the U.S. government for their hateful speech? That kind of thing?

Invoking the KKK is the First Amendment equivalent of Godwin's Law.

We let idiots have their stupid rallies because it's not the government's job to decide who gets to speak, and because the laws you would like to use against the KKK or WBC end up getting used against Malcolm X or Occupy protestors at a different time or in a different part of the country.

And just to remind everyone, the reason we're worried about chilling effects and anonymous speech is that you don't want the first person to write anything challenging corrupt power structures to get indicted with "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" charges backstopped by prolific surveillance, or have their house burned down by ideological opponents who use government powers to discover dissidents and are subsequently never prosecuted. Not only does that allow the injustice of corrupt power retaliating against activists for good, there is a real risk that the retaliation will be an effective deterrent to future activists.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#65

Post by zt »

Oddly, the Reuters article and headline changed (and then the moderators appropriately changed the HN headline). That's also why so many of the comments below, particularly those referencing the 300 number, don't make much sense.

Here is the lede of the originally linked article:

U.S. spy agency paper says fewer than 300 phone numbers closely scrutinized

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. government only searched for detailed information on calls involving fewer than 300 specific phone numbers among the millions of raw phone records collected by the National Security Agency in 2012, according to a government paper obtained by Reuters on Saturday.

The unclassified paper was circulated Saturday within the government by U.S. intelligence agencies and apparently is an attempt by spy agencies and the Obama administration to rebut accusations that it overreached in investigating potential militant plots.

The administration has said that even though the NSA, according to top-secret documents made public by former agency contractor Edward Snowden, collects massive amounts of data on message traffic from both U.S. based telephone and internet companies, such data collection is legal, subject to tight controls and does not intrude on the privacy of ordinary Americans.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#67

Post by [deleted] »

vlasev wrote: post #31
Brushfire wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my point was that if they only use it 300 times, is it really worth having the program around given the combo of costs both in privacy and dollars? Of course there is more at play here, but they should be selling how many terrorist attacks they avoided, now how many people they snooped.

Would you know WHICH 300 phones to check without the program?

[deleted]

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#68

Post by comefrom10 »

mpyne wrote: post #45
comefrom10 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if the US government wants to protect us from terrorism it should stop acting like a terrorist organization abroad.

What was the excuse for 9/11 then? I seem to recall it was nothing more "terroristic" than having U.S. forces deployed in Saudi Arabia, at the request of that nation. But let me guess, victim blaming is OK, as long as the victims are Americans?

I didn't blame victims in that post. Perhaps I should be more certain about what the US is doing abroad before saying what I said, but I have gotten the impression that the US government's track record has been less than stellar, e.g. Operation Ajax.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#69

Post by stretchwithme »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #60
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense.

What makes no sense is assuming that all of the data collection being discussed has prevented a single genuine attack.

Oh, they told us it has. Shouldn't that be good enough? They've been open and honest so far.

Re: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated

#70

Post by stretchwithme »

threeseed wrote: post #39
stretchwithme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many threats to human life. There is a cost associated with preventing each life lost. Obviously it makes sense to consider it. We could have never allowed foreign tourists into the country. That has a cost associated with it, right? That would prevented Saudis from going to flight school and booking those flights, right? Shouldn't protecting lives be before every other consideration? No, we have to balance…

Are you answering the right person ? Because I was specifically talking about the costs associated with terrorist acts. And that preventing them has significant and widespread benefits to the economy. It's pretty clear that focusing just on ROI alone this program is easily worth the price.

And just banning foreigners is free. The ROI is infinite on free things that work. But ROI is not the only consideration.
Post reply on HN