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

Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#31

Post by uptown »

tempodox wrote: post #14
yc1010 wrote: post #13

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become "untouchable"

Since the NSA increasingly knows everything about everyone, it is only a question of time until they will be able to blackmail just about anyone. How politicians, who are naturally especially vulnerable in that department, can let this cancer grow unchecked, is beyond me.

Perhaps you've answered your own question. If the NSA knows everything about those that might oppose it, how could compromised politicians possibly hope to succeed in reducing those powers, unless they were willing to become potential martyrs?

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#32

Post by Zigurd »

forgetsusername wrote: post #29
mjevans wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…

> It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective I truly don't believe this. Any popular uprising that gets large enough, or loud enough, has the capacity to demand change. Sure, the corporate, moneyed interests will push their agenda as hard as possible to try to sway opinion (which isn't always misaligned with the public good, by the way). But at the end of the day politicians will do what t…

> Any popular uprising that gets large enough, or loud enough, has the capacity to demand change.

But possibly not within what people call "the system." It's entirely plausible that some things are "kept safe" from the whims of the people.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#33

Post by robin_reala »

steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

‘left’ is a bit of a misnomer. With US politics it’s ‘extreme right’ and ‘a bit right of centre’.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#34

Post by irixusr »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #17
mjevans wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more reasonable explanation is that irrespective of what he might /want/ to do, he doesn't actually have sufficient power to do anything about the actions, assuming he's actually being accurately briefed on the matter. It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective at doing anything than consuming money to be elected for corporate interests the US congress has become. I think at this point I…

Don't knock that approach - it's known as Sortition ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) and I'm personally convinced that it's a much better way of achieving democracy than any other.

I've argued for it for a few years but most people are aghast at the suggestion...

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#35

Post by atmosx »

gozo wrote: post #2

The New Yorker wrote the "must read" article on the subject two years ago: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-decept... I remember it being really good, you should read it if you have the time.

That's a book not an article, but it is really good. The NY has really high quality content.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#36

Post by irixusr »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #18
cubancigar11 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected. That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guil…

> We elect him Out of how many candidates were you selecting? 300 million? Or just a few, with long political careers? You don't get to the point of being an actually electable candidate if you could stir up a real mess within the establishment.

The entire political process is a vetting system to weed out the unreliables and the ones who won't play by the rules.

Also, I have an inkling that the system is a sociopath pass filter; at any level of government the candidate who is slightly more immoral has improved chances. After a few iterations we have power lusting vampires in charge (the Cheneys, Clintons, ect.)

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#37

Post by irixusr »

richardw wrote: post #15
steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

> the catastrophic career-ending political fallout from a major terrorist attack Any rational person would consider preventing a major terrorist attack far more important than keeping their job for four years. People with the opposite motivation do exist, but generally I'd consider them pretty close to evil. Someone like that would probably have had a different 2 terms to Obama, in my opinion.

And if the system selects the non-rational power hungry by design?

Elections are cutthroat, and to become president you have to have won many of them. It could be argued that an evil person has slightly better of odds of getting through. Raise that to the power of the half dozen elections needed to become president and you end up with Cheneys, Hilarys, and the like...

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#38

Post by JupiterMoon »

irixusr wrote: post #34
duncan_bayne wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't knock that approach - it's known as Sortition ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) and I'm personally convinced that it's a much better way of achieving democracy than any other.

I've argued for it for a few years but most people are aghast at the suggestion...

And yet we decide who is guilty of major crimes by this method.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#39

Post by purpled_haze »

steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

> He chose the option that he thought would give him a second term (and then a gold plated public speaking career after the White House).

Isn't it also possible that he chose the option he thought was right for the country?

Of course, it isn't that clear cut and there were probably many other things weighing in, but I wouldn't discount it.

Re: Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

#40

Post by irixusr »

yc1010 wrote: post #13

There is another scary explanation, is that they have collected enough dirt on him and other politicians to become "untouchable"

It's not an explanation, it's probably the truth.

John Edgar Hoover did this with the FBI almost 100 years ago. Why would it have stopped? There's no reason for them to have stopped blackmailing folks. In fact there are several buildings bearing his name in DC

Post reply on HN