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

Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 199 posts

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#41

Post by rayiner »

rfnslyr wrote: post #35
rayiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe severe violent revolt but I literally don't ever see that happening. I always find this sentiment (or various forms of "wiping the slate clean") to be quite amusing. It is historically more likely for a society to be less free after violent revolution than the opposite. Radicals who believe in a cause strongly enough to engage in revolution also tend to be ideologues who, once in power, want to remake society…

World War I and II were settled over some whiskey and a game of poker right? It's difficult to objectively say whether violent revolt works, because every single revolt has been in a very different context then the next. The amount of people, artillery, the strength of the opposition, the cause, the location, the current government, the time. You can't say whether a violent revolt is the way to go or whether it's not…

> World War I and II were settled over some whiskey and a game of poker right?

It's interesting that you mention that, because at the meta level World War I and II were Germany's attempt to violently overthrow the status quo in Europe (which had long tried to maintain Germany as a divided non-power). The revolution failed and the status quo won.

> It's difficult to objectively say whether violent revolt works, because every single revolt has been in a very different context then the next.

Sure, but you can see patterns. From France to China to Russia to Afghanistan, etc, etc, violent internal revolutions are more likely to result in oppression than freedom.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#42

Post by aaronem »

adventured wrote: post #33
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not current and it's not a crisis. It's working exactly how it was designed to work. We changed, not them. The Internet disrupted the popular perception of democracy by creating a massive global communication channel that is not under the control of the people in power.

It is fascinating how people lay blame. The most common thing I see is my fellow Americans blaming politicians, bankers, school teachers, lobbyists, cops, unions, almost anyone... except themselves. The truth is, the American people are the problem, and they've spent the last few decades doing everything possible to avoid personal responsibility for the shape of the country.

> It is fascinating how people lay blame.

Oh, yes, very much so! For example, you seem quite effortlessly to lay blame on three hundred or so million people, and that's only counting those alive right now, with no consideration for those who've predeceased us, at least some of whom presumably could be expected, in your formulation, to have had a hand in creating the situation you so readily decry.

But laying blame, while satisfying, rarely does anything to solve a problem. In blaming "the American people" for the current state of things, you imply that they, all three hundred million or so, could have acted, and presumably could still act, to improve the situation. What would you have us do? -- all three hundred million of us, of course.

(For the sake of not seeing you wiggle out of the question that easily, assume in your answer that some method, not intolerable to the modern American sense of morality and ethics, exists of usefully coordinating the actions of almost half a billion human beings.)

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#43

Post by fit2rule »

What I'd really like to know is what process does the President-elect endure that turns him into an alien lizard from hell?

I mean, seriously .. its like black and white with Obama. Pre-Presidentiality, Obama was real. After-President'ness, he's become some obscure caricature of all other Presidents who came before him..

So is there some sort of secret Presidential chamber that all the past Presidents get to donate their DNA to, which gets injected into The New Guy, to make him into some sort of transformed hybrid clone, or something? I seriously wonder sometimes, if the enemies of the USA haven't realized that the real backdoor to infiltrating America and bringing it to its knees is in the Presidential Training Program that goes on with newly elected victims. It sure seems like the President of the USA gets a new skin, anyway .. I've only been watching for the last 4 Presidents or so ..

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#44

Post by ambler0 »

adventured wrote: post #33
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not current and it's not a crisis. It's working exactly how it was designed to work. We changed, not them. The Internet disrupted the popular perception of democracy by creating a massive global communication channel that is not under the control of the people in power.

It is fascinating how people lay blame. The most common thing I see is my fellow Americans blaming politicians, bankers, school teachers, lobbyists, cops, unions, almost anyone... except themselves. The truth is, the American people are the problem, and they've spent the last few decades doing everything possible to avoid personal responsibility for the shape of the country.

To be fair, the American people are and have been the most heavily propagandized people on Earth. I sympathize with your desire to tell people to step up and take personal responsibility, but the truth is that many people can't even think straight. Look at how many people consistently vote against their own interests, identify with their oppressors, etc.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#46

Post by jasonlotito »

wmeredith wrote: post #37

“When you get the package every morning, it puts steel in your spine,” said David Plouffe, the president’s longtime adviser. “There are people out there every day who are plotting. The notion that we would put down a tool that would protect people here in America is hard to fathom.” That's the whole problem. The NSA spying is being sold as if it stops terrorist attacks. It does not. They have not cited a single incid…

I'm agains the NSA spying as well, but saying they haven't cited anything isn't the same thing as proving they haven't stopped terrorist attacks.

Please don't read more into this than what I said.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#47

Post by nathan_long »

OK: once he got in office, it turned out that watching everyone seemed like a good idea.

But here's the thing: it's unconstitutional. It's illegal.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

Meaning: 1) You can't read my email without a warrant and 2) you need specific suspicions of me to get one.

Any interpretation that says the grocery list in my pocket is covered by the fourth amendment, but every electronic communication I make is NOT covered, is insane. "Houses, papers and effects" was the writer's way of saying "everything I can think of belonging to that person." Email and phone metadata and GPS location weren't imagined, but can you seriously say they would have been excluded?

So: balancing security with privacy is a hard thing. It is. But pooping on the constitution isn't a solution.

You want to surveil everything? Say so openly, explain your case, and try to repeal the fourth amendment. We're America: we decide by voting.

Secretly discarding the highest laws of the land is tyrannical, whatever the justification.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#48

Post by drzaiusapelord »

mcone wrote: post #30

What's interesting is that the article suggests that Obama himself did not know extent of the NSA's activities. ("At the same time, aides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden... just how far the surveillance had gone.") If that's true, it seems to indicate that Obama is not an overseer at all. Have our worst fears been confirmed? Is the NSA an unstoppable organization that reports to…

This is a good point. We have this fetished ideal of the POTUS as this mastermind, but I imagine a great deal of things are purposely hidden from him or hidden via apathy/politicking/corruption and "lets not involve the president on this," kind of thing.

I'm also curious what would happen if we had a president who was strictly anti-intelligence and anti-military. I imagine that's a quick way towards impeachment or getting deposed. There are way too many powerful people and way too much money in intel/military to just reform it. Can you imagine moving to a military budget on par with Russia? Ever?

If anything, we're a military power first and a democracy last. The fact that we can casually lie about war justifications, end the lives of 130,000 civilians, get into almost 1T in debt for it, and have it considered uncontroversial by American citizens and politicians speaks a lot about our values and our system.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#49

Post by brd »

aaronem wrote: post #25
brd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any campaign will be a marketing effort in any context. The crisis is that the marketing effort is the only data point that most of the voting population considers prior to the vote. Without an informed population there is no incentive for honest campaigns.

You can turn that argument around just as easily; without honest campaigns, there is no incentive for an informed population, because there is no meaningful chance for popular support to elevate a candidate running an honest campaign to the same heights attained by those to whom all weapons are friends.

Politicians are public figures by definition. There is plenty of information out there to make informed decisions with or without the existence of honest campaigns.

The only reason there is "no meaningful chance for popular support" of an honest candidate is because the voting population doesn't reward it; and perhaps more importantly, the voting population doesn't punish dishonesty.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#50

Post by untog »

grandalf wrote: post #19
untog wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Taking on the government is the wrong fight when they are (at least broadly) representative of public opinion. The fight should be educating people on the dangers of NSA spying, something that I haven't really seen anyone try to do. All commentary comes from the perspective that "NSA = bad" is already a given.

Hmm. How can the public have an opinion about a secret program? If a leaker revealed that the government had a secret underground concentration camp below the Arizona desert would you view that to be the result of dutiful fulfillment of public service?

The public can have an opinion about a secret program when details of it have leaked, as is the case here. But more to the point, if the public don't know how little they know then that's also an area for activism. All of these topics ought to enrage everyone, but they don't because of a lack of awareness. Yet the tech crowd starts the debate assuming everyone is angry.

I have no idea what point you're making with the concentration camp comment.

Post reply on HN