
Watch 2013 Barack Obama Debate 2006 Joe Biden Over NSA Surveillance [video] - kirillzubovsky
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/watch-2013-president-obama-debate-2006-joe-biden-over-nsa-surveillance
======
cpursley
If we were honest and classified President Obama objectively based on his
actions alone, we'd label him a neoconservative corporatist in the same vein
as Cheney. It's painful, especially after Bush. The truth hurts.

~~~
university
But exponentially more charismatic to the general public, which means he will
run the ball down the field further than Cheney ever could. Look out.

~~~
pvnick
Apparently the CIA agrees with you:
[http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/](http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/)

From TFA: "the CIA sees Obama as a valuable asset in putting a pretty face on
our wars in the eyes of foreign populations."

~~~
WA
Man, this is so true. I think 90% of Germans would vote for Obama. Mission
accomplished.

------
chimeracoder
Related - here's a video of Candidate Obama debating President Obama on
government surveillance:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8)

~~~
mkolodny
You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's
just so much hesitation in his words.

In 2007, he believed in what he said - that security is not an excuse to
violate the civil liberties of the people. There was so much conviction in his
words. That conviction just isn't there anymore.

I'd follow 2007 Obama anywhere, but 2013 Obama is severely lacking.

~~~
fossuser
The problem is that both candidate Obama, you and I are arguing from a point
of massive ignorance.

From what's been leaked I find the idea that all digital communication is
monitored on everyone and everything disturbing. As Snowden mentioned in his
interview this is a powerful thing for a government to have and can become
dangerous. It's something the public should be involved in deciding where and
if that line is drawn.

It's a catch-22. The information necessary to fully appreciate what's going on
is classified and the only way to understand the argument completely is to get
a high level clearance which then prevents you from making any arguments about
it.

Daniel Ellsberg wrote something really interesting about the effects this can
have on the cleared vs. uncleared: [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge)

From what's available I can't imagine a situation where the cost of this type
of massive internet surveillance outweighs whatever benefit. While I can
appreciate the necessity of secrets - I wish we could know the truth.

~~~
MichaelGG
That's a great link and interesting story. For complex scenarios I can see
where they're might be many things people don't know about that changes their
position.

In the case of such a broad surveillance system, I'm having trouble coming up
with good secret reasons. Perhaps I'm being unimaginative. If, for example,
this system _was_ preventing hundreds of terrorists, what damage would be done
by stating that it has unequivocally stopped major threats?

What's the damage in revealing what's going on and why?

Is the plan "if we're quiet enough, bad guys won't bother using encryption or
cover their tracks?

I'm curious to know, what information, in theory, would change someone's
opinion, and _must_ remain secret in order to keep things safe. Aside from
breaks on popular ciphers or mass collusion with major hardware/software
vendors.

Edit: I'd trust a president stating for sure that this is entirely necessary,
and stating there is secret information that'd even change the EFF's opinion.
Obama's speech doesn't give that perception at all. It feels like he's
stumbling around to justify something he knows is bad, using nebulous threats.

~~~
d23
> In the case of such a broad surveillance system, I'm having trouble coming
> up with good secret reasons. Perhaps I'm being unimaginative. If, for
> example, this system was preventing hundreds of terrorists, what damage
> would be done by stating that it has unequivocally stopped major threats?

What if it had prevented a biological weapon that could have killed millions
of people in NYC? Revealing this publicly could cause mass panic.

Obviously I have no evidence of something like this, but it's a thought
experiment to consider. Would that make the surveillance worth it in your
mind?

~~~
MichaelGG
Obviously giving specifics might cause panic, but, I'm not sure I see the
problem in having e.g. Obama state "Unequivocally, there has been major
threats thwarted, and considerable lives saved due to this program." Or some
assertion recognizing that yeah, this is a 180 from my prior, but there's a
good reason, seriously.

The thing is, I don't think anyone is claiming major successes. They're just
saying that it's OK. Watching Obama's talk just gives you the feeling it's
political nonsense, with a bit of CYA lines too.

------
kunai
Obama's speech is obviously canned, while Biden's is the opposite. He is
speaking candidly and openly, because he knows that it's the truth. The
President, on the other hand, is hesitant and only chooses neutral words.

Amazing what diction can do for public viewpoints. It's equally amazing how
many don't care enough to notice the aural cues of the state of being
disingenuous.

~~~
mtgx
Wasn't this the speech where he had to wait for like a minute before his staff
brought him the speech, because they lost it or something? So yes, definitely
canned, and he would've rather waited until they found the speech, instead of
taking the issue head-on himself.

------
znowi
Where did the master of public speaking go? I don't recognize Obama here. He's
nervous and lost at words. Almost guilty.

~~~
temphn
Probably Jon Favreau didn't ghostwrite this one.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_\(speechwriter\))

~~~
zecho
I downvoted this because you linked to an entry without reading it, which
drives me insane. Strike "probably" from your post and you have an accurate
statement.

~~~
temphn
Tone was lost over the Internet. Inclusion of "probably" was a joke: without
Favreau or another speechwriter, Obama isn't going to sound particularly
erudite, in the same way that an actress without makeup generally looks much
more normal. Most people don't realize that Obama doesn't write his own
speeches anymore than he picks what suit to wear.

------
pocketstar
How do you identify terrorists with only phone call 'metadata'?

~~~
glurgh
You can't - the government's argument is that you can use the metadata to
usefully augment other intelligence/investigative techniques without undue
violation of the privacy of, well, everybody whose metadata you've collected.
If you know a terrorist has used a particular phone number you can use the
historical metadata record to try to identify the terrorist's potential
associates. Ex-NSA head Michael Hayden claims that's the way the data is used.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2013/06/09/190092800/bus...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2013/06/09/190092800/bush-era-nsa-chief-defends-prism-phone-meta-data-
collection)

Given the very limited number of hard, verifiable facts about these programs,
whether you believe or disbelieve this explanation is almost a matter of
faith.

------
ck2
Not an excuse at all but watching President Obama these days is like watching
the end of The Man Who Fell to Earth (the original one with Bowie) where he's
lost all control of people around him that he helped bring to power in the
first place and he's utterly frustrated but stuck having to work with them.

As someone who was thrilled to see him elected, I am going to be very relieved
to see him flown away on that last day, just like Bush.

------
quadrangle
FWIW, it is important that Candidate Obama had to say the things he did to be
elected. I would rather live in a world in which the ideals we put forward are
good, even when the system then corrupts them and people turn out
hypocritical. It is far worse when we as a society lose our principles.

------
natch
Has this been taken down? Mirror, anyone? Not working for me, just gives a
black rectangle once the video is accessed.

~~~
stordoff
Working here. Maybe try this link:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SRCOouw5I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SRCOouw5I)

------
sreddy1
cool stuff

------
wilfra
The difference between 2013 Obama and 2006 Biden is that 2013 Obama gets
briefings on what exactly they uncover with that metadata and who they are
catching with it. That's what he means when he says it was worth it.

~~~
wmeredith
That, "we have our reasons, but we can't tell you" excuse holds no water with
me. I'm more likely to get shot by cop than hurt by a terrorist in this
country. Whatever happened to, "give me liberty or give me death"?

~~~
wilfra
I was only addressing the reason for the conflicting statements. Whether or
not National Security is irrelevant I'll leave to others to debate. But it's a
virtual certainty Obame and Biden would have disagreed with you (correctly or
incorrectly) before taking office, as they would now.

