

Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency - ComputerGuru
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23642880

======
DuskStar
Well, here's my thoughts - First, why the hell would you trust that the
"transparency" would be real? Admit what Snowden revealed, and keep the next
violation of human rights under wraps. If we can't verify transparency, it
would have to be based on trust - and I see a distinct lack of both the
ability to verify the NSA's claims and reasons to trust the NSA.

Second, why would you trust President Obama to follow through on a promise? I
believe he promised protections for whistleblowers on the campaign trail,
after all.

And third, what good does knowing that the NSA monitors everything do, when
all that really does is give them carte blanche to use the data however they
want, knowing it won't expose the program? (Program being already exposed)

~~~
sage_joch
I agree that it would be foolish to trust anything Obama says at this point.
But I also found a bit of solace in his paying lip service to the
Constitution. Given the government's increasingly open hostility toward
anything resembling liberty or reason, I had developed a foreboding about how
quickly things might devolve into totalitarianism. At least for now it seems
we have achieved a temporary moment of stability.

------
grecy
> _Mr Obama said there had been more anti-American rhetoric since President
> Vladimir Putin returned to Russian presidency._

I like how this implies the anti-American rhetoric is because of Putin
becoming president, rather than America doing things that it actually deserves
to be criticized for.

"We're sick of people criticizing us, but we're going to keep doing all the
stuff that caused that criticism".

------
brokenmusic
_" It's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programmes;
the American people need to have confidence as well."_

Great tactic. Redefine the problem. NSA is not the problem. Confidence is.

~~~
jshen
I think the NSA should exist, so it is not the problem. Balancing safety and
privacy is the challenge. Preventing abuse is the challenge. Having enough
transparency that we are comfortable is the challenge.

~~~
brokenmusic
So can you tell me how has NSA protected you? What has it done?

~~~
jaekwon
The NSA should be about protecting privacy & communications infrastructure by
hardening crypto security.

Don't they do some of this already? I just think this is what they should be
focusing on, rather than gathering data.

~~~
brokenmusic
When people say "but government is supposed to do that" it sounds almost like
a religious belief. Just because the holy book - in this case, the
constitution - says so, it doesn't mean it is so. It also doesn't mean we
should somehow fix the government. When a religious person complains his
priest is not praying hard enough for him that's why he's not doing so good,
the solution is NOT to find a better priest.

But a less abstract reply to your comment should be this: what does protecting
privacy and communication mean in the case of NSA doing it, how is it done
specifically and why does it make you safer?

------
malandrew

        Mr Obama said: "No, I don't think Mr Snowden was a 
        patriot."
    

IMHO the word "Patriot" has become the worst kind of weasel word. It can
basically be twisted any way by the speaker to launch an ad hominem attack on
someone.

Given the revelations of the past two months, I'm certain that many many
Americans don't think that President Obama is a patriot either since he's
basically sold out on the Bill of Rigthts, a core pillar of our nation. On the
other hand, Obama's use of patriot at this PR event basically means someone
who provides defenses for the country against perceived existential threats
and does not weaken them. By that definition, Snowden would probably not
qualify as a patriot according to many.

Given your values, the meaning of patriot can change between two definitions
that are at odds with one another. This makes it a useless word that plays to
emotion and lowers the level of discourse dramatically.

Besides those two defitions, many characteristics of someone who is patriotic
are interchangeable with the characteristics of someone who is a bigot. Just
like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's patriot
is another man's bigot.

~~~
penguindev
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Particularly used in the
negative tense (calling someone unpatriotic). Hermann Göring did the same
thing.

------
tenpoundhammer
I read, "You will have more access to the documents we want you to see." and
"We want to figure out how to get the American people to be OK with us
violating their constitutional rights, because I'm OK with it."

------
intslack
I'm furious that reporters just kept throwing soft balls at him in the face of
the Special Operations Division revelations. If that's not abuse, what is?

~~~
hga
Yeah, that's the one that totally clearly crosses the line for me. It's not a
Hoovering thing, it's not a "this will almost certainly be abused some day"
issue, it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" abuse of due process, no matter
what sophistry is used to justify it. And amply confirmed, e.g. by a paragraph
in an IRS document (saying to never mention it or the like).

------
gasull
I was an Obama supporter during his first presidential campaign. I remember
some people warning that Obama would be a disaster. I tried to listen to what
they said, but I couldn't find any criticism at that time that made sense,
just some wingnuts saying that he was the AntiChrist, or that he wasn't born
in the US (me neither, I don't care) or that he was a fascist without
explaining why.

I wonder if it's just that the media was really good at mocking these people,
or if they were really wingnuts and they have just been lucky in being
somewhat right in the long run.

~~~
cloudwalking
I think Obama believed most of what he campaigned for. But I believe the
Office of the President changes people, and I'm sure there is a lot going on
that we don't see. Something changed his mind. Not that I agree with his
change in stance, but I suspect that's what happened.

~~~
geoka9
> But I believe the Office of the President changes people

Looking at what some former presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to
mind) say after they left, it seems that this change is not permanent. It's
almost like moving into the White House makes folks automatons void of any
previously held principles. And moving out makes them decent people again.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I think a big part of it is that presidents don't really think for themselves.
They are essentially at the behest of their advisors and the heads of these
various organizations. If the head of the NSA tells you that the program is
constitutional and we have X, Y, Z safeguards in place to protect Americans,
why would he not believe it? It's not like he can evaluate the implementation
himself. I doubt he would even have time to if he wanted to dig into the
gritty details.

The fact is, there is a machine that exists beyond any sitting president, and
that machine is adept at getting its way. Convincing one person, who does not
have any former experience in these matters, that your way is the right way,
is probably the easiest part of their job.

------
betterunix
What value can be placed on Obama's pledges? He promised transparency in 2008.
He promised again in 2012. He failed to follow through. Why would anyone think
he will follow through this time around?

------
drcube
"That promise I made a few years ago and then did the exact opposite? Would
you believe me if I made that same promise again, this time with even less
incentive to follow through on it?"

------
pcvarmint
Like he pledged to close Guantanamo, protect whistleblowers, and so on? He
lies more than the Bushes or Clinton ever did.

I think at this point he's just a puppet of a fascist machine, and until it
collapses, we're going to face more of the same -- an empire on its last legs.

------
brokenmusic
Also, note how he put it: "the american people NEED to have confidence".
Because WESAYSO.

~~~
malandrew
I don't think anyone wants confidence. We want guarantees and actual
oversight. We're simply going to get the oversight theatre that gives false
confidence to people.

~~~
hackinthebochs
This is exactly right. I don't want to have to "trust" anyone that things
won't be abused. I want a real system of checks and balances such that abuse
cannot happen and when it does it will automatically be brought to light.

------
seferphier
>The president also accused Russia of "backward" thinking, following its
decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden, who disclosed details of the
secretive surveillance programmes to media.

I like how it is in quotes.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's in quotes to identify it as his explicit statement rather than a
reporter's characterization of his statement. This is standard journalistic
(and English) usage.

------
codezero
I don't see transparency in quotes in the article, also your title doesn't
match the article's: "Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency"

~~~
ComputerGuru
Point taken and title updated.

~~~
codezero
Thanks, although I agree with the sentiment of the original title :)

------
dsadasd
Yes economic interest apparently took over as prism scandal threatens to take
us tech industry down the drain.(and of course 27 new programs and 14 new
courts will be created to take care of current damage.)

Also what about all the hate for Russia and Putin? Any f$*#@king apologies or
pledges on not doing it in the future? Or that was complimentary, on the
W.House?

