I just listened to the NSA speech by President Obama and as expected there is precious little in terms of real change. For civil libertarians, it is a nothing burger served hot and with a sympathetic smile. It is much of the same. Another review board composed of government officials. Another promise for the Executive Branch to review itself. I am in Salt Lake City today on the Sister Wives case, but I am struck by the absence of civil libertarians on the coverage by the networks. I will have to run to court but I was underwhelmed. It seemed like another attempt to reinvent privacy in a new surveillance friendly image.
As I tweeted earlier, it was rather unpersuasive to hear Obama say that he was always intended to force reforms and that Snowden was merely a coincidence. If you step back, you will note that the programs will continue and the intelligence community will retain its authority with little outside independent limits. The speech had the feel of a car salesman coming back from “speaking with the manager” and saying that he is able to offer a deal that no one likes but he wants to offer because he likes the customer. Of course, this “deal” does not require our consent.
In the end, the changes are either undefined (like the privacy advocates) or basically “trust us were your government” (including a reminder that NSA people are your neighbors).
The Paul Revere reference at the beginning seemed to set the less than honest approach of the speech. Revere and the Sons of Liberty were watching public movement of an enemy at war. Likewise, Obama again references “court” review of the metadata as if it were a true court applying real probable cause. FISC has been widely ridiculed as a rubber-stamp for the government. The Court is given a standard that is hard for the government not to satisfy with even the most casual filings.
In the end, it was in my view more spin than substance from the President.
What did you think?
I had some reflections on the speech which I will offer off the top of my head.
There are at least two pillars of this or any other tyranny:
We have lost touch with the ability to determine it … that is, as a nation we have lost the ability to determine constitutional right from constitutional wrong.
What is evolving in our politics is sorta like the essence of a personality cult as far as I can tell (Nick calls it a duopoly).
The it is no longer the determinate focus of our concept of tyranny, rather good constitutional law is determined by who is doing it (ipsie dixit).
So what is evolving is “we can do it (which is defined as “anything”) to anybody, so long as we are doiing it to them …”
And in our nation at the group level it is getting to look like our politics is conposed of two personality cults striving for power while putting the other personality cult down.
I am seeing this infection spreading, because we see more and more of it being done to them, which eventually turns on the people:
(Follow The Immunity – 3). It is that old germ within that old epidemic which we thought we had immunized ourselves from.
Stay thirsty for freedom my friends.
I’m aware that the POTUS takes an oath to the Constitution!
I’m aware that the POTUS lies a lot. I’m aware that NSA engages in economic/industrial spying, as is the POTUS. I’m aware that NSA spies on heads of state who are supposed to be our allies, as is the POTUS. I’m aware that POTUS regularly and illegally sends drones to kill people and has other people tortured in Gitmo and black sites, all of which is expressly forbidden by our law. Here is a man who does not believe in or follow his oath of office. That should not be acceptable to anyone, but by god, it will be, no doubt of that.
“It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.”
Rene Descartes
You’re aware, I assume, that the POTUS has access to intelligence not available to congress persons.
As expected from President Obama. And the fact that he claimed it is being a coincidence with Edward Snowden’s efforts and his decision to reign in the NSA is a flat out lie. Why would he announce efforts to reform a program that was secret anyway? If it was a coincidence why did the US gov’t got to the extent it did to arrest Edward when the president was looking into the same issue?
The speech was a sham.
And just how did they acquire that knowledge?
Did it occur to anyone that the President and VP changed their minds about the benefit of the NSA program, because they have acquired more knowledge to better inform their opinion?
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-presidents-nsa-speech
ACLU Comment on President’s NSA Speech
January 17, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON – President Obama today announced changes to some aspects of the NSA’s surveillance programs and left others in place. Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction:
“The president’s speech outlined several developments which we welcome. Increased transparency for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, improved checks and balances at the FISA court through the creation of a panel of advocates, and increased privacy protections for non-U.S. citizens abroad – the first such assertion by a U.S. president – are all necessary and welcome reforms.
“However, the president’s decision not to end bulk collection and retention of all Americans’ data remains highly troubling. The president outlined a process to study the issue further and appears open to alternatives. But the president should end – not mend – the government’s collection and retention of all law-abiding Americans’ data. When the government collects and stores every American’s phone call data, it is engaging in a textbook example of an ‘unreasonable search’ that violates the Constitution. The president’s own review panel recommended that bulk data collection be ended, and the president should accept that recommendation in its entirety.”
A new chart comparing the ACLU’s proposals, President Obama’s announcement, and the USA FREEDOM Act (a bipartisan bill currently pending in Congress) is at:
aclu.org/national-security/where-does-president-stand-nsa-reform
@randyjet ” I am quite willing to have Sen such as Sanders, Franken, and others look at the programs and make their judgments because I TRUST them and their judgment…… I think that Obama is doing his best to strike that balance.
I think your view is probably going to be popular.
But people like me have real doubts in part because of believable, detailed criticism of the intelligence oversight committees by former members and others, comments by FISA court judges the intelligence agencies were not forth coming or actively attempted to mislead, and Obama, himself, denied that spying was taking place prior to Snowden’s leaks.
People like me don’t feel we can count on the committees to do a good job. We have clear evidence that we can not trust the president. And the agencies themselves do not cooperate with civilian oversight and control.
As one of the possibly few on this site who has been the victim of illegal acts and spying on the part of the FBI and CIA, I think that I have a bit better perspective than most on this subject. I have also read extensively on this subject and the NSA and its activities. To say that the US is a police state now or is on the way, is an outright lie. The US is a FAR freer country than it has been in our recent history, or at least in my lifetime which is over 60 decades. Virtually most of what people object to now has been done FAR more in the past and with FAR more restrictions on civil liberties than now. The only increase is in the technical ability to collect data. The instances of illegal searches, break ins, bombings, and other acts of terror that the government engaged in the past is gone.
I think that people should read the ACLU statement on the speech which acknowledges this fact. I disagree with their last part which says that the bulk collection of data should be ended. The ability of intel gathering rests to a large degree in many cases on such bulk collection of data. I am amazed that people who say that they do not trust the government to hold such data have NO problems with a private for PROFIT company doing that very thing! At least I have some say in what the government may or may not do. That is NOT true of AT&T or any other company. I for one trust them a whole lot less. In fact, most of these companies are running their own intel programs using the same data. So which is worse? The problem is that I and most people cannot know how vital such collection is to the intelligence effort. That I am willing to leave to the professionals who DO the work, and have some kind of oversight on such activity. This does NOT involve actual listening to the content of such conversations which DO require a court order EVEN NOW.
As for those who hate any policing power in the government, I think that they are the minority and as I said before, those are the very folks who hate any laws restricting what private citizens can do or any government regulation In order to have regulation, there has to be collecting records and intelligence on activities for those regulated actions.
randyjet,
Do you trust Biden in 2006 and Obama in 2007? (see Felix above). They thought this stuff was illegal then and they weren’t willing to trust the government. Now they think it’s fabulous!!!! So which Biden and which Obama do you trust? Where they prototerrorists just trying to get away with things back then?
In my link, I clearly show Congress members can’t get information from the NSA. They can’t even begin to do oversight without information. Which Congress members do you trust? Do you distrust those members who can’t get information or do you trust those other members who don’t care if they have the actual information anyway?
At least one judge and several FISA rulings say this collection is not legal or Constitutional. Do you distrust them? Do you only trust people who agree with the NSA? If so, why?
“I think that people who object to the NSA programs would also object to most of our laws.” -randyjet
LOL. And that’s where you lost me.
Jill and “old nurse” have it right.
Well the guardian folks think differently……
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
Every day I am more and more grateful to Edward Snowden. I hope he has the best possible life wherever he ends up.
I suppose that this message was intended to sooth over Germany’s critic of the US collection of data by the US…. Merkel didn’t seem to pleased from what I’ve read….
I suppose once a propagandist always a propagandist…..
I think that people who object to the NSA programs would also object to most of our laws. The government already monitors and collects massive amounts of our personal lives. In fact this is enshrined in our Constitution, it is called the census. Then we all have Social Security numbers which are unfortunately in many cases secured from other agencies which is to our detriment. So if we can trust the Social Security Administration with such data, I can hardly see the problem with the NSA gathering metadata of such simple things as telephone records as to who and where calls are made. Then there is the fact that ALL financial transactions over $10,000 are reported as well. I don’t have the time to list all the areas in which we have the government keeping and looking at many aspects of our lives. In fact, bureaus such as the Labor Dept, Education, and others would be put out of business if we cut out their access to massive amounts of data.
What it has to come down to is trust. We cannot have every person getting informed as to all the programs that are used by law enforcement to do their jobs. We do not object to the police withholding information that they develop in the course of an investigation. I am quite willing to have Sen such as Sanders, Franken, and others look at the programs and make their judgments because I TRUST them and their judgment.. What is needed is a process of annual review to make sure that the agencies are not exceeding their legal limits. That is the only way to allow the security agencies to do their legitimate jobs AND to preserve our Constitutional rights. I think that Obama is doing his best to strike that balance.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/biden-in-2006-dont-count-me-in-on-trusting-nsa-phone-call-surveillance/
Back in 2006, in an appearance on CBS’s “The Early Show,” then-Democratic Delaware Sen. Joe Biden railed against the controversial National Security Administration program to monitor domestic phone calls.
Biden likened the program to blind faith in giving up personal financial information.
“I don’t think it passes the test, but it clearly doesn’t pass the test of two existing statutes that say you can’t do these kinds of things, forgetting the fourth amendment,” Biden said on CBS’s May 12, 2006 “The Early Show.”
“And, Harry [Smith], the bottom line here is: Here you have the president of the United States making a judgment that’s not reviewable by the courts and not reviewable by the Congress, and we’re supposed to say OK, and they tell us — it’s a little bit like what would happen if the banks turned over all your checking records, without your name, but gave the checking account number and every single purchase you made and pattern of your behavior — and then you were told, ‘Don’t worry, they — that’s not invasion of your privacy.’”
Biden, who as vice president has been quiet on the recent revelations about NSA seizure of phone records from major providers, then made the same argument many are making today — that seizing records of calls made, even without listening to the specific calls, can be an invasion of privacy.
“Harry, I don’t have to listen to your phone calls to know what you’re doing,” Biden said. “If I know every single phone call you made, I’m able to determine every single person you talk to, I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is: What do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al Qaeda? There’s a whole deal when you talk about this kind of stuff, where the — under the law they’re supposed to demonstrate that they’re getting rid of and not keeping any extraneous information that they pick up on wiretaps and/or pick up in sweeps like this. And the president’s saying–I think I wrote down — he said, `this is not mining or trolling.’ If it’s true that 200 million Americans’ phone calls were monitored, in terms of not listening to what they said but to whom they spoke and who spoke to them, I don’t know, the Congress should investigate this.”
Biden told “The Early Show” host Harry Smith that he did not care to put trust in then-President George W. Bush and then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
“We have — no one’s arguing whether or not you have the right to go out and tap and go and do everything you need to do to track down al Qaida. That’s not the question here. Years ago, Harry, I was one of those guys that co-sponsored the bill called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Everyone I’ve spoken to, who’s been briefed on this matter, says that everything that they want to do to deal with al Qaida is able to be done under FISA and maybe with a small amendment to FISA. But this idea that no court will review, no Congress will know and we’re going to trust the president and the vice president of the United States, that they’re doing the right thing, don’t count me in on that.”
“I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. That is not who we are.”- Barrack Obama in 2007
First, Congress does not know what is going on. They are supposed to represent the people, but they have little information. Read this link, if you don’t believe me.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_briefed.html
The idea that Obama would have gotten around to telling us about all the spying without Snowden is simply rubbish. At each point, even after Snowden’s whistleblowing, Obama has lied and said something was not happening, only to have it shown that indeed, it was. Further, after lawsuits are filed, his DOJ has denied plaintiffs information and blocked their suits in every possible way.
Why anyone would believe Obama or think that his “reforms” would actually protect the people, is beyond comprehension.
Much of the data is collected by private corporations. The actual elected government, outside of the executive and a few high placed Congressional/Judicial lackeys, does not know what info is collected, how much the contractors are being paid, or what is being done with the information. The US is a totalitarian surveillance state. If a bunch of Democrats are OK with that because they like they guy who is president, then we have gotten to a very bad place in this nation. Citizens stand up for their rights no matter who is president.
I guess the biggest question I have is who is going to decide who sits on the court that reviews requests to access the database and how transparent the process will be and why should anyone believe anyone in the administration or the intelligence community when they continue to say, “trust us”??
Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.