
President Obama Proposes Reforms To Surveillance Programs - jacquesm
http://npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/09/210539942/live-blog-president-obamas-press-conference
======
incongruity
Too little, too late.

It's not just whether or not the President believes the programs are being
abused _now_ , it should be about whether or not they are ripe for abuse now
or in the future (which they clearly are).

------
spoiledtechie
I think it was Judge Judy who said it.

If a person has lied to you once, you can be sure that the person will be
capable of lying to you again.

------
jared314
Just like when I see a CEO start taking away the free soda, I believe he saw
this coming. With the amount of money, people, and secrecy put into these
programs, eventual scandal was the only possible outcome. Now he has enough
political capitol to change things, for better or worse.

I expect to be down voted for my opinion, but what are fake internet points
worth if you don't spend them on something you believe in.

------
dasil003
Despite the disappointment that a lot of us felt over the accomplishments of
Obama throughout his presidency, he really had plenty of chance to get out in
front of this one. However, what we got instead was the perfect illustration
of just how much of a politician's politican he really is, and how nothing
that comes out of his mouth reflect anything other than whichever way the wind
happens to be blowing today. I'm sorry Obama, but your greatest legacy will be
nothing more than the illustration of just how impotent democracy is in the
media age.

------
dllthomas
These actually sound like good measures. I'm not convinced they will be
sufficient, however; in particular, many of Americans (myself included) are
now highly skeptical that the government will actually be following its own
rules instead of abusive, secret reinterpretations thereof. These reforms
coupled with something that addresses _that_ , I might accept (but don't hold
me to that...).

------
anigbrowl
Goodness, that's hard to read. I don't think much of 'live blogging.'

The wSJ also has a report on this:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732452250457900...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504579002653564348842.html)
As I've predicted before, even the mention of reform was met with swift
condemnation from both junior and senior Republicans.

As a matter of pure _realpolitik_ , I don't expect any significant progress on
reform before fall of 2014, when the US has finished withdrawing military
forces from Afghanistan. As C-in-C, the President has to pay as much attention
to the safety of troops in the field as to the (often inchoate) concerns of
the domestic electorate.

------
AnthonyMouse
What a sham. "Oversight and transparency" is not good enough. The government
kicks you in the teeth and then lies about it, now they promise next time not
to lie about it. Anyone else feel underwhelmed?

Oversight and transparency are a big pile of nothing if all it means in
practice is that government officials engaged in unjustifiable surveillance
have to work in pairs to "oversee" each other. The government should not be
engaged in mass surveillance. How about you identify a specific suspect and
get a warrant, Mr. President.

> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people," Obama said.

"America" is not interested in spying on ordinary people, the trouble is the
NSA seems quite keen on it.

> Obama said his administration and the NSA is only interested in preventing
> another terror attack.

> "We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that," Obama said.

For example, no interest in providing exculpatory evidence to those they
falsely accused. That seems fair, right?

------
blueprint
If they're going to actually reform the surveillance programs they're going to
have to declassify ALL of them first. otherwise this is just a propagandic,
empty gesture.

------
Vivtek
_Even without the leaks, [Obama] added, the U.S. government would have made
the reforms he was proposing,_

Pull the other one, Mr. President.

~~~
shill
He is making a fool of himself.

------
shmerl
Pure PR move. He will lose next elections anyway.

------
unclebucknasty
Snowden cannot be guilty of treason AND the program needs reform. Obama needs
to choose one.

------
OGC
I, too, propose reforms to surveillance programs. My proposal will have about
as much impact as his.

------
michaelwww
As I listened to him speak today I realized that he may not understand the
technology the NSA is using or how it could be surreptitiously abused. No man
can be an expert in everything and his background as a law professor probably
didn't include the necessary study. So he relies on the experts in his circle
who are telling him what he is repeating to us; that no Americans are being
spied on. Of course he believes all his people are honest and have the highest
integrity so why shouldn't he believe them? It's not the first time and not
the last the a President has been duped by his own people.

------
chmars
The cryptographic announcement to president Obama's announcement is snake oil.

OK, snake oil is probably not recognizable as such for a politician …

~~~
chmars
Sorry for the typo, 'announcement' should of course be 'equivalent'.

It would be interesting to see whether the down vote resulted from English
language nazis or Obama fanboys … ;)

------
ajays
The reason Obama Administration is pissed at Snowden is not because he leaked
so-called "secrets", but because he exposed the "man behind the curtain". That
is to say: Obama is no different than any mainstream Republican would have
been.

I voted for Obama twice; and in 2008, when the race against McCain was tight,
I spent many weekends in Reno and Northern NV, campaigning, pounding the
pavement, going door-to-door in the heat.

And I will be cancelling my Democratic membership. I urge all of you to do so
too (Democrat or Republican). It is clear that neither of the two parties are
interested in our rights. Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi are war mongers;
and Republicans are merely a shadow of their so-called ideals. Republicans are
also to blame, because they go out of their way to push for such things. Look
at the Republican braying after Benghazi; they will take even the slightest
setback to go after Democrats as weak on terror. And the Democrats are more
than happy to oblige by bringing in a police state.

Please: the only way to bring about change is to _stop_ voting for either
party, and to actively campaign against them. We are lucky: we have 15 months
to go before the next election. Let's get some third-party candidates in the
House!

~~~
quadrangle
For reference, the BEST solution to the two-party system is RANGE VOTING:
[http://rangevoting.org/](http://rangevoting.org/) Don't waste your time
trying to do anything against the two parties until we get that in place.

~~~
kaonashi
So don't do anything to unseat the two major parties until the two major
parties pass a constitutional amendment making unseating them possible?

------
dictum
>I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden had
legal means to bring his concerns to light.

Such as voicing his concerns to a superior, getting his clearance revoked just
because, and then ranting in a blog, just to have his accusations denied with
weasel words by the administration? [EDIT] Or just dismissed in a press
conference as paranoia from a lunatic?

>Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the
reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing
national security.

How did Snowden sacrifice national security?

~~~
Gormo
Snowden improved national security by informing the American public about the
activities of its most dangerous enemy.

------
wavesounds
"Obama added that he was directing the Justice Department to make public the
legal rational for the bulk collection of Americans' electronic data."

This would never have happened without Snowden, It's absurd to claim he is not
a whistleblower. I have lost so much respect for this president in the last
few months.

~~~
incongruity
Exactly. The utter lack of commitment to principle (i.e.: defend
whistleblowers) is absolutely disheartening. It's made worse by the mental
gymnastics to claim that Snowden is not a whistleblower.

Hope and change? Where and when do we get those?

~~~
VladRussian2
[http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/obamas-new-
sloga...](http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/obamas-new-slogan-yes-
we-scan/yes_we_scan/)

------
drewblaisdell
> "I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden
> had legal means to bring his concerns to light.

> Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the
> reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing
> national security.

Complete and utter bullshit.

~~~
mpyne
What's funny is that I think he's right in the first case and wrong in the
second.

I don't seriously believe that _these_ reforms would have been proposed
without external pressure, and Snowden provided that pressure in a forum
unlike Drake, who had done the right thing.

With that said I don't think Snowden is a "patriot". He may be anti-
surveillance, which may extend benefit to the American people, but his actions
are not consistent with someone who is focused more-or-less solely on benefit
to the American people, but rather someone who is opposed to government in
general and the NSA in particular.

For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American
people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it
doesn't help the American people. Likewise with all the drama about asylum
with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel
a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home.

But Russia and the U.S. have real issues they need to work together on, which
will have an impact on the world at large. That drama didn't help the American
people either (and we'll see what happens with the crisis in Syria as well).
But it did help make the American government look bad, along with Snowden
personally.

~~~
drewblaisdell
> For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American
> people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it
> doesn't help the American people.

Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including
revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is _way_ in the
positive.

> Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama
> in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid
> looking politically weak at home.

Well, a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the
figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?), and b) the "drama" is a product
of the United State's sensationalist news.

~~~
mpyne
> Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including
> revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the
> positive.

Perhaps, but only by the same logic under which supply-side and 'trickle-down'
economics is expected to succeed.

> a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the
> figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?)

Sure he could. Many "patriots" did things at risk to their liberty because
they believed it was the right thing for their country.

He _chooses not to_ because asylum is better for him personally. That's
certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice.

> b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.

When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?

~~~
moocowduckquack
You make no sense. He couldn't be seeking asylum over the risk to his liberty
if he hadn't done something at risk to his liberty.

~~~
mpyne
Nations don't approve asylum based _only_ on risk to liberty of a person.

For instance, let's say that HN decided President Obama is guilty of treason
to the American people, and actually convince Congress to impeach him. Under
your idea the President would be able to flee to Russia due to the threat to
his liberty, and Russia would be obligated to accept him due to the threat to
his liberty. _That_ is what makes no sense.

~~~
moocowduckquack
I'll admit that you managed to make even less sense there than in your
previous comment, which is impressive.

