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

81–90 of 199 posts

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

#81

Post by aaronem »

untog wrote: post #54
aaronem wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly 125 million people voted in the last presidential election. Had I been among them, I'd therefore have had roughly 1/125,000,000 of a say in who gained the office. Perhaps, to a homeopath, such a marvelous dilution of political power might leave something meaningful in its wake. Not being a homeopath myself, I find it somewhat less than compelling. I fail to see how resignation in the face of inevitable powerl…

Roughly 125 million people voted in the last presidential election. Had I been among them, I'd therefore have had roughly 1/125,000,000 of a say in who gained the office. Naturally, that isn't true at all. The President gets all the attention but they can't do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate's approval. Your vote for representatives in those houses is worth a lot more than 1/125,000,000. If y…

The population of my congressional district, as of 2010, was about six hundred and sixty thousand. I grant this is three orders of magnitude smaller than the voting population of the United States as a whole; I don't grant that 1/660,000 of a say, in who represents my district in the House, is worth much more, in practical terms, than 1/125,000,000.

The population of my state is about six million. I'm not seeing much value in 1/6,000,000 of a say in who represents my state in the Senate, either.

"Get involved!" you say, as though it were that simple. I've known people who were, and my observation has been that what might start as a hobby soon enough grows to absorb their entire lives, while providing no obvious benefit either to their own well-being, or in the cause to which they so completely give themselves. Having also known people who fell foul of heroin, I'd have to say that, while a political habit isn't quite as damaging overall, the difference is a lot narrower than one might expect, and the similarity certainly doesn't militate in favor of either.

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

#82

Post by dllthomas »

eof wrote: post #78

My heart sunk when Obama won the election the first time; not because I wanted McCain to win, or that I had any actual hope that one of the third-parties could win; but because everyone was so happy. I was in Burlington, VT; about as liberal a town as you will find in the USA; and there was a strong anti-war movement. That anti-war movement bought Obama's promises hook-line-and-sinker and the same people that were ou…

So, if your analysis is correct... what do we do about it?

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

#83

Post by aaronem »

ambler0 wrote: post #44
adventured wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the American people are and have been the most heavily propagandized people on Earth

You have heard of North Korea, I hope?

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

#84

Post by clarkmoody »

nsns wrote: post #9
grandalf wrote: post #3

The headline might as well be a more Onionesque "After gaining power, politician turns out not to actually hold the strongly principled views he expressed while campaigning". I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Generally speaking, the vast majority of power holders agree that aggressive spyin…

" A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. " You've just described the current crisis of representational democracy.

I believe it's high time to repeal the 17th Amendment and return a fair bit of power to the states. This would ease the democracy crisis and decentralize some of the power from D.C.

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

#85

Post by aaronem »

psaintla wrote: post #71
grandalf wrote: post #3

The headline might as well be a more Onionesque "After gaining power, politician turns out not to actually hold the strongly principled views he expressed while campaigning". I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Generally speaking, the vast majority of power holders agree that aggressive spyin…

Does it really have to be that cynical? Don't you think it is entirely possible pre-2008 Obama's opinions were formed with the same information as the rest of us and post-2008 Obama received more information (national security briefings) that completely blew away his belief system? I don't agree with much of what the Obama administration has done regarding domestic and international surveillance but I always feel lik…

Well, to be sure, the job always seems to turn their hair white.

On the other hand, I'm easily cynical enough to wonder whether a modern president's staff hairdresser is expected to have an unusual degree of skill with dyes and bleaches.

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

nathan_long wrote: post #47

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…

This has been debunked to death. The issue isn't "houses, papers, and effects" not encompassing e-mail, but the "belonging to that person" aspect. Phone metadata doesn't "belong" to you. It belongs to your phone company. They generated it, they store it--you never even see it. It's also quite questionable how much of say your Facebook data "belongs" to you. Or your GPS location data. It's about you, but much or all of it is generated by some company and stored by that company, and you are often even not aware of it nor do you have access to it. You have little to no recourse if they lose it, destroy it, or misuse it. You can't even make them let you see it.

Indeed, I strongly agree with your use of the word "belong" because I think the use of "houses" and "persons" purposefully puts the 4th amendment on a strong property rights foundation.[1] But viewing the 4th amendment through the lens of property rights (i.e. "everything I can think of belonging to that person") makes most of what the NSA is doing quite legal! Things that are about you do not necessarily belong to you. If I write down every time my neighbor enters and leaves his house, that's mine, not his. Is Facebook tracks what you click on and your cellular company tracks your GPS location or your phone company tracks who you call, that's their data, not yours.

[1] The prevailing Supreme Court view of the 4th amendment is broader than this property rights view, but still embraces third party doctrine which makes much of what the NSA is doing legal. And certain Justices seem partial to the property rights formulation.

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

#87

Post by abvdasker »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #18
nsns wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. " You've just described the current crisis of representational democracy.

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.

No. Wrong. It is current and it is a crisis when campaign finance is essentially unlimited and politicians are more accountable to their financiers than their constituents. American politics were bad and they're getting worse post-Citizens United.

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

#88

Post by kordless »

aaronem wrote: post #42
adventured wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

When you spot someone blaming, try not to assign blame when you reply. It interferes with forward movement in the conversation. Also, everyone makes mistakes every now and again. Shit happens.

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

#90

Post by seunosewa »

mikepurvis wrote: post #36
wwwtyro wrote: post #5

“When you get the package every morning, it puts steel in your spine,” said David Plouffe, the president’s longtime adviser. This strikes me as backwards. Seems that a president with a steely spine would be strong enough to maintain the rights of citizens in the face of such challenges.

I wonder if the real answer is to simply reject that workflow. I can't imagine functioning in an environment where I'm being daily bombarded with information about dozens or hundreds of potential "threats" which never become anything. What if the president simply told his advisors that he would take a weekly instead of daily briefing on these issues?

He'll look bad when his failure to react to some threat on time leads to some unfortunate incident.
Post reply on HN