
Obama: Can't Have 100% Security, and Also Have 100% Privacy and 0 Inconvenience - aaronbrethorst
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/06/07/president-obama-you-cant-have-100-security-and-also-then-have-100-privacy-and-0-inconvenience
======
jgeorge
The only comment I'll make on this subject.

"When I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important
than any other. Number one, to keep the American people safe. And number two,
to uphold the constitution and constitutional rights to privacy and to civil
liberties."

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

There's nothing in the Presidential oath that promises safety for American
citizens. There's only one job sworn in the oath. To uphold the Constitution.

You had one job. ONE JOB.

------
mtoddh
"In a press conference just now, President Obama addressed the NSA
surveillance programs, saying " _we 're gonna have to make some choices as a
society_" to examine how we deal with privacy issues and terrorism."

Right. And just how is society going to make informed choices about things
they don't even know exist?

~~~
mtgx
They're saying they aren't intercepting audio recording of phone calls, but
can we really trust them at this point?

And he wasn't very clear about the online communications, from what I read so
far. So probably Skype calls and such are intercepted and recorded anyway.

~~~
waterphone
Obama specifically said "nobody is listening to your telephone calls", which
is probably technically true. There isn't a person sitting there listening to
them. If it's happening, it's an automated process and they're being archived,
to allow for retroactive search and playback (probably with a warrant at that
point to make it more legal).

------
mindcrime
You can't have 100% security anyway, and even if you could, I don't know that
anybody considers that the goal. And I don't think most people who have
actually thought about the issue would say that "100% security" is such a
desirable goal that it would justify trampling all over basic rights.

------
waterphone
You can't have 100% security period, so why are we giving up our privacy to
reach an impossible goal?

