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

White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#61

Post by dobbsbob »

sparkie wrote: post #36
Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

The "protect the children" card. It's already in full use in the UK, with mandatory opt-out porn filtering.

Canada also tried this card unsuccessfully. Lately they've been trumping up phony terrorist busts where they groom crazy people online and sell them inert explosives, then never stop talking about how great their anti terrorist squads are for breaking up plots they themselves plotted

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#62

Post by babesh »

Obama is a politician: someone who says anything to get elected and once elected does what he wants instead of what he said he would do. A politician tries to amass power. Information is power. There is NO way the government would give up that power. Don't expect him to do anything nor should you expect most politicians nor the next administration.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#63

Post by babesh »

amark wrote: post #6

Basically what they're saying is "we're ok with subverting the constitution if it fits our needs". The executive branch's power has gotten completely out of hand in the past decade, all under the guise of "security" and preventing "terrorism". The reason the judicial branch exists is to stop crap like this. If they can't do their job constitutional balance of power doesn't exist.

The 3 branches of government were for settling disputes between those in power, not for those without power.... without all out war. If you look at history, look at the division of new states into equal portions of slave and non slave prior to the Civil War. Balance of power between Northern trading/industrial interests and Southern plantation ones. In this case, the countervailing power are businesses that cannot sell overseas because of this. So if anything changes, focus on external software versus domestic where they already have you over a barrel.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#64

Post by e12e »

tinfoil007 wrote: post #35
e12e wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid this all dates back further than 12 years (eg: see Binning at hope 9). There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism (if for no other reason than domestic terrorism falls under the fbi, not nsa -- and is and has been arguably the bigger threat).

William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxnp2Sz59p8 all talks: http://www.hopenumbernine.net/schedule/

thanks for the link and correction (of Binney's name).

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#65

Post by Theodores »

alan_cx wrote: post #38
Theodores wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good! A year ago nobody imagined that all of this Snowden stuff would come out, did they? Yet he was clearly working on something that may or may not have worked. The mass surveillance works two ways: to learn/steal the secrets of the citizenry is one way, the other way is to hide secrets from the citizenry. Some people in government are more concerned with people talking about their secrets, their 'noble lies'. This…

Oh do get on with it. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, all I'm seeing is childish usenet style attention seeking.

There is more to it than 'childish attention seeking'. With the world at large (and not you personally), what is the point in sharing the good stuff, i.e. anything constructive and enlightened?

As things stand there are a lot of things worth getting properly upset about - those wars in far off places, the likes of Guantanamo and the Iraq War that was started on false pretences. No heads have rolled for any of these crimes. We have all become de-humanised Good Germans, not really that bothered and incapable of organising meaningful opposition.

At least our German friends had a government that knew what was going on and were in charge of the show. We have corporate puppets that cannot think outside of the dogma provided by their respective political parties. Our elected leaders are not that powerful. Standing up to them should not be difficult in the least.

Enough time has passed since 2003 for the effect of 'either you are with us or against us' to wear off. People should not let the lies that led to 'shock and awe' be forgotten. We should be regaining our voice to say 'actually, yes, we do want those people that took the world to war on false pretences brought to court'. But this has not happened and is not happening.

With this being the case, why should anyone that knows anything really damaging to the government that we have want to damage the government? People have got the government they deserve.

However, there is also the matter of fact-based history, and an unwritten obligation to hand on to future generations a fact-based account of our times instead of mutually convenient fairy tales. There is also the matter of justice, e.g. for people in places like Guantanamo. Therefore, although most people - those with the attention span of a TV advert - have proven through their silence and submission that they don't deserve better, 'fact based history' does matter.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#66

Post by Theodores »

javajosh wrote: post #32
Theodores wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good! A year ago nobody imagined that all of this Snowden stuff would come out, did they? Yet he was clearly working on something that may or may not have worked. The mass surveillance works two ways: to learn/steal the secrets of the citizenry is one way, the other way is to hide secrets from the citizenry. Some people in government are more concerned with people talking about their secrets, their 'noble lies'. This…

I've downvoted both your comments because while I appreciate a bit of showmanship, I dislike this kind of rhetoric even more. It's hard to communicate, and if you're not willing to speak plainly about what "threats" and "ace" then you're just an asshole.

Thanks - really. Please see my third comment (above in thread). I wish I could share more with the HN audience, but I do not want to bring any trouble here! I fish, because maybe there will be a time when I can be more open.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#67

Post by aluhut »

dblarons wrote: post #59
aluhut wrote: post #44

I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

I think this issue is causing real identity problems for many in the Republican party. As noted above, the libertarian wing is clearly against surveillance. However, IMO some of the most fundamental tenants of conservatism are anti-authoritarian, leaving pro-surveillance conservatives on the wrong side of the aisle in many respects. It is absolutely astonishing to me that so many conservatives defend mass surveillanc…

This sounds really crazy and paradox. Thank you all for the insight.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#68

Post by Malician »

rtpg wrote: post #50
Malician wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of DOMA, Justice Scalia noted that, if Obama thought DOMA was unconstitutional, he could simply refuse to enforce it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-... Doesn't this suggest that it is, to some extent, the President's responsibility to maintain his own branch? Or do you think Scalia is wrong in both cases?

Where exactly is it said in there? I'm having a hard time finding something that means that. And in a more general sense, isn't the executive bound to laws passed by congress? Slightly off-topic, but the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review. An interesting concept to me.

Sorry for the delay.

"This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act (and thus gave Windsor standing to sue) even though he believed it unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitu- tional, see Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Un- constitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (Nov. 2, 1994)—in which event Windsor would not have been injured, the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive’s determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court’s desire to blurt out its view of the law."

Post reply on HN