Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why No Executive Order To Stop NSA Metadata Collection?

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the if-the-president-does-it-it's-legal dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 312

An anonymous reader links to this editorial at Ars Technica which argues that "As chief executive, Obama has the power to reform the NSA on his own with the stroke of a pen. By not putting this initiative into an executive order, he punted to Congress on an issue that affects the civil liberties of most anybody who picks up a phone. Every day Congress waits on the issue is another day Americans' calling records are being collected by the government without suspicion that any crime was committed. 'He does not need congressional approval for this,' said Mark Jaycoxx, an Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (5, Funny)

gweihir (88907) | about 7 months ago | (#46678427)

Or they can manufacture it and have demonstrated it to him.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (5, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about 7 months ago | (#46678467)

Or maybe he just doesn't want it to stop.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (3, Funny)

gweihir (88907) | about 7 months ago | (#46678517)

Well, I have some residual trust in the good in people. Maybe I am wrong there.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (5, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 7 months ago | (#46678609)

NO, you're making the assumption that because he's on your side on some things, he's on your side on everything.

Alas, there's not much evidence of that.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (0)

mozumder (178398) | about 6 months ago | (#46678807)

Or you can just figure out that, no, there is nothing wrong with metadata collection by the NSA.

Remember, this is metadata, not data. Government has the right to collect information. Government has the right to maintain its powers. They don't have the right to collect your private communications without a warrant. And metadata isn't private.

Courts have already decided this.

You will have to catch up with what the courts have already decided.

Sorry, but normal, socialized people do not care about metadata privacy. We are not geeks, and do not care about what geeks care about. We consider geeks to be unsocialized and uncivilized, with way too much precious snowflake syndrome. Geeks are far too narcissistic and introverted to be helpful to socialized people. They are generally to be avoided, and mistrusted.

That is why normal people, like me, and President Obama, do not trusts geeks, and their concerns. We do not respect them.

It's a sad realization, but you geeks are going to have to face the fact that you're terrible people that the rest of society do not care for.

Maybe in the next life, you will learn to socialize, learn to make friends and influence people, instead of whine about why you are so important and libertarian and how awesome you are, because you are such precious snowflakes.

The rest of us will just continue with our normal lives, with a big, socialized government that provides necessary services that we want government to provide.

We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one.

Thanks.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678833)

I suspect from your statement " you geeks " that you are not here because you are interested in News For Nerds, but are only here to AstroTurf and troll.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 6 months ago | (#46678857)

I'd have to say it probably has more to do with being shown the Kennedy assassination tapes prior to the stroke of the pen that put it into action. Cheney did say back when all this started "We're going to the dark side"...

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | about 6 months ago | (#46678923)

I'd have to say it probably has more to do with being shown the Kennedy assassination tapes prior to the stroke of the pen that put it into action.

More specifically, the Kennedy assassination tapes that were shot from a completely different angle than the Zapruder film and hasn't been released to the public.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (-1, Troll)

AudioEfex (637163) | about 6 months ago | (#46678969)

I was with you at the beginning, until you turned it into an "anti-geek" rant. It's too bad you derailed yourself or you may have gotten a point across - but since you didn't, your post will fall into moderated obscurity.

The part I agree with is that I personally am not concerned whatsoever with the metadata. At all. And the only reason you see most of the media coverage is because folks don't understand what metadata is. If you polled the public right now you would largely find them believing the government is secretly recording and archiving all of our actual phone calls. They aren't.

I know I'll get lectured about "slippery slopes" by saying this, and get down modded, but hey, my karma can take it. I couldn't give a flying fuck if they have a list of my phone calls - my cell phone company already does and it wouldn't be that difficult to get anyway if the government actually cared.

I don't call people on watch lists, I don't call any known criminals, and if they want to see that I called my dentist or my mom last week, yay for them. That's all they will find.

That's yet another reason I don't give a shit - who the hell makes all kinds of calls these days, anyway, except for business if you must. I text everyone I know - and just like when I type data into any electronic device, I am fully well aware it is not secure from the government or anyone else really should someone be curious. So if they want to see me kvetching about Game of Thrones or read me talking to a friend about a restaurant to have dinner at, again - go for it. I'm flattered anyone would care.

I know the groupthink here is to distrust and be wary of everything that has anything to do with the government, but I think there are much worse aspects to be worried about while folks are freaking out over this. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I on the rare occasion may be) I'd say the whole thing was a big distraction to keep us occupied while the real bad stuff is happening.

In any case, after this hit and I read about it for myself, instead of listening to what folks were saying about it and hyping it up to be, and saw that it was just metadata, I haven't thought about it since until now.

Oh shit...I gotta go. Guys in dark suits and expensive shades just showed up in black SUV's in my driveway. They found out that I missed my dentist appointment and forgot to cancel beforehand!!! Damn you metadata, damn you!!!

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (3, Informative)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 6 months ago | (#46679091)

Actually, the *are* recording a lot of phone calls. That's just a different program Snowden released info about - and there have been dozens of them.

And "just metadata" allows them to track your location, see who you speak to, and much more:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [washingtonsblog.com]

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#46678881)

What motivation does Obama have to stop this? His liberal base doesn't seem to care. It actually helps him in the center, where many people value security over privacy. The only organized political opposition is from the Paulite faction of the Republican Party, that is not going to support him, no matter what. So he has nothing to gain by changing the status quo.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (2)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 6 months ago | (#46679019)

You're absolutely right, we should file a motion to rename the dollar to the fiat, and the united states to house of corporate spam, and repaint the white house to a more appropriate Halloween theme...

heh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679191)

It actually helps him in the center, where many people value security over privacy.

This is bullshit. I'm in the center, and all I see are lefties saying "Obama knows best; he's doing what's necessary" and people on the right saying "war on terrorists.. rabble rabble if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."

I am center-left, and it's all horse shit. The fourth amendment has been gutted and I'm livid... as I am with Obama and Holder's misuse of drone strikes against US citizens.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (5, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 7 months ago | (#46678647)

No, you're just easily duped. Obama is, like Bush, a statist who supports the government's "right" to imprison, torture, and kill whoever they want for whatever reason they decide.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (0)

mozumder (178398) | about 6 months ago | (#46678823)

Most people are statists.

We prefer a strong controlling government.

We prefer not to have freedom-loving libertarians.

Freedom loving libertarians do not help me, so why should we allow them to live in our society?

Did you pay for my health care? Do you want to pay for my health care? Then why the fuck should I let you live in this property we control? What exactly are you doing for me?

It's sad when libertarians learn that life isn't free, that no one is interested in giving them freedom.

It's just a basic rule of socialization: you make friends by doing stuff for them. Too bad unsocialized geeks that tend to lean libertarian never figured this out.

Normal, socialized people are statists.

Normal, socialized people are never libertarian.

Libertarians are generally just terrible, god-awful people. There is a reason they have that social stigma.

The quicker you nerds figure out why everyone hates you, the better off you will be.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678855)

Have you considered switching to decaf?

maybe a little yoga?

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46678947)

Substitute "blacks", "gays", or "Jews" for "Libertarians" and you will understand the way you sound.

It's the typical pattern. Hate someone for being different from yourself, then go back and act like every one of them harmed you in some way that justifies it.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678985)

NSA shill identified! Seriously, put in a little effort to be subtle next time. It just isn't working when you self-identify by going "you nerds" on a site where we're ALL nerds except for outsiders and shills.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (4, Insightful)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 6 months ago | (#46679121)

"Doing stuff for a friend" is friendly and altruistic when I *choose* to do it. When something's forcibly confiscated from me to be given to a stranger, it's not me "doing stuff", it's not for a "friend" and it's certainly not altruistic. It's also not altruistic to vote for a bill that does that, or to vote for the guy who votes for that bill.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (4, Insightful)

labnet (457441) | about 6 months ago | (#46679199)

I've read his autobiography. He is a political nobody, with no family of note, who was an average community organiser in Chicago, who happens to have brilliant oratory skills. That means he is bankrolled by someone very powerful, and thus will do what he is told.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (2, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46678707)

if you can still have any trust in obama you are wrong here my friend. He has proven time and time again that he is full of shit and every move he makes is political in nature.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (2)

Smallpond (221300) | about 6 months ago | (#46678781)

As I recall, when Obama was in the Senate he voted in favor of the Patriot Act extension and warrantless wiretaps. I don't know what you are basing your trust on.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46679109)

I don't believe it. Obama never actually showed up for votes when he was in the Senate.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

tqk (413719) | about 6 months ago | (#46678977)

Well, I have some residual trust in the good in people.

Yet at the same time you accuse $omeone else of blackmail. What a confused person you are.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679063)

It's ok.

Bill Clinton believes in UFOs and little green men.

reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (0)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46678613)

it's because an executive order can be undone just as easily by the next President

if Congress passes a law it will have alot more standing than an exc. order

if reforming the NSA is so obvious, why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?

Re:reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (4, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 7 months ago | (#46678657)

Bullshit. These are his programs. He wants them to continue.

Re:reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678903)

You don't know, what we do know is that anyone can reverse them in the future, so the best course is to get Congress to make the change.

Bush started warrantless wiretapping (-1, Flamebait)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46679227)

From 2006: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls [usatoday.com]

Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping programs. These are in no way, shape or form "Obama's programs"

Re:reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678721)

why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?

you better check to see who actually supports NSA meta data collection, because it's pretty bipartisan.

stop being a stupid fuck.

Re:reversed "with the stroke of a pen" (1, Interesting)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 6 months ago | (#46678767)

if reforming the NSA is so obvious, why do Republicans in Congress oppose it?

Gee.. I wonder if the (R)'s don't have a hard-on to bring on the police-state as much as the democrats? I *used* to be a Republican, after about 1/2 way thru BushJr's second term, I got fed up with the shitting that BOTH parties are doing on the Constitution and dumped the R's.. I held my nose in 2008 and voted for McCain and gleefully voted for Romney in 2012... BUT the vast majority of Republicans nowadays are simply "Democrat-Lite".. They want to shit on the Constitution as much as the D's do... I'm beginning to wonder even about the new R's that came in back in the landslide of 2010, some of them seem to be eying the Constitution as toilet paper also.... Woe unto us...

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 7 months ago | (#46678637)

The article and yourself simply have not been paying attention.

It is very simple, so please keep up.

The only problem the ruling class has with ANY of this is that the plebs became aware it was happening. The goal now is a combination of appeasing the plebs with empty action and/or stalling long enough for them to forget (about 3 mins for most) and go back to chewing their cud.

That is it. That is all there is too it. It is no surprise.

The other mistake here is assuming that they were as surprised as you at the revelation.

Re:Is it not obvious? They have dirt on him! (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46678677)

Id wager he simply just doesnt want it to stop. He enjoys his power to much to allow it to stop

Why would he? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678439)

Obama is part of the system that created the problem in the first place.

Re:Why would he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678619)

chief executive, Obama (D)

Easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678445)

Because he fully supports it. Duh.

Obama on spying in 2007 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678451)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs

So in 2007 Obama... (4, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | about 7 months ago | (#46678557)

...was every bit against domestic spying as he was against gay marriage.

Maybe he should have said "If you like your civil liberties, you can keep your civil liberties."

Re:So in 2007 Obama... (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46678611)

He voted for telecom immunity in 2007. If anyone thought he was against spying when you voted for him, it's because they weren't paying attention (or maybe because they were deceiving themselves?)

Re:So in 2007 Obama... (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46678725)

or they were blinded by the fact that they were voting for a black president, instead of doing some (any) research on the actual man, if they did they would have seen that he was nothing more than a political hack

Re:So in 2007 Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679077)

It's a 2 party system. There is no "good" candidate, just the lesser of 2 evils.

Do you really think Romney would have been better?

Re:So in 2007 Obama... (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46679115)

Saying there is no 'good' candidate is not an excuse for idolizing your own candidate. If you were blinded into thinking Obama would oppose warrentless wiretapping, you were still blinded.

Re:Obama on spying in 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678785)

Yet as a Senator he voted to extend FISA powers. It cost him my vote in the Presidential election.

The author is nauseatingly naive (5, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 7 months ago | (#46678475)

He's still got Obama's election slogans ringing in his ears "Yes we can!" and "Change!!" lol. Obama is a political animal, just like all the others in DC. Do not expect anything different from him. As another commenter pointed out, he is part of the system that created and supports the military surveillance complex.

Re:The author is nauseatingly naive (0)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46678783)

Let me guess, is the author's name, Bennett Haselton??

Re:The author is nauseatingly naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678845)

Of course, you are also part of the system that created and supports the military surveillance complex.

You are playing the role of the "Token Opposition." Your purpose is to remind everyone that the two major parties are part of the military surveillance complex, and that they are hopelessly irredeemable. This causes people to stop trying to reform the major parties.

Re:The author is nauseatingly naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679133)

or maybe it's time to let the other ones have a chance

Re:The author is nauseatingly naive (1)

liquidpele (663430) | about 6 months ago | (#46679145)

Will never happen with a winner-take-all voting system.

Re (5, Insightful)

srichard25 (221590) | about 6 months ago | (#46678851)

I am constantly amazed at how naive the average American voter is. Obama was a guy who could give a good speech, but he had ZERO leadership accomplishments to his name. The most basic research into Obama's background should have given anyone pause that he could actually accomplish any of what he promised. He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.

For those of you who voted for Obama and are currently disappointed, I have a suggestion for you: next time do some background research on the person instead of just relying on campaign speeches and 30-second ads.

Re:Re (4, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46679005)

He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.

He seems to have worked on the assumption that it was better to have no failures for which he could be blamed, rather than aiming for successes for which he could get credit.

In some people's minds, lack of failure is a surer measure of success, than attempting success (and possibly failing, thereby).

Re:Re (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679113)

He seems to have worked on the assumption that it was better to have no failures for which he could be blamed, rather than aiming for successes for which he could get credit.

In some people's minds, lack of failure is a surer measure of success, than attempting success (and possibly failing, thereby).

Except when they're already under fire, or the lobbyists are paying in advance. There's less to lose in those cases: either because the damage is already done, or because potential blowback has been compensated for in cold hard cash.

Seriously though, mod parent up.

Re:Re (2)

Undead Waffle (1447615) | about 6 months ago | (#46679117)

Presidents these days are mostly elected for their charisma. You have to look at who a candidate associates with to get an idea of what they are actually going to do. For example, Obama putting 5 RIAA lawyers in the DOJ then pushing for things like ACTA. It's usually the advisors that come up with the ideas, so analyze who is advising them. This is probably why the NSA stuff has been consistent between Bush and Obama.

As for the lack of accomplishments that's another plus in an election. Voters tend to react more strongly to the negative stuff and people sometimes make mistakes or do things you might not agree with. A ghost is more electable.

How about the next prez? (1)

murdocj (543661) | about 7 months ago | (#46678477)

If all Obama does is sign an executive order, the fire under Congress to control this activity is gone, and the next president can easily undo it. How about keeping the heat on Congress to pass legislation?

Re:How about the next prez? (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 7 months ago | (#46678577)

If all Obama does is sign an executive order, the fire under Congress to control this activity is gone, and the next president can easily undo it. How about keeping the heat on Congress to pass legislation?

Excellent plan! With all that added pressure making it a top priority we should be able to anticipate seeing Congressional action on it by, say, 2076.

Re:How about the next prez? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46678729)

how about we just elect someone who will follow the constitution instead of his handlers and not have to worry about it? I know its a pipe dream

Actually I think its most likely this... (5, Insightful)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about 7 months ago | (#46678483)

There is serious political downside to doing this.

Consider for example what would have happened had he walked back all these subversions to our liberties 6 months before the Boston Bombing and then what would have happened in the political sphere thereafter. In the end Obama is not a courageous leader who does what is right because its right - he's a very cautious politician and makes decisions that seem to reflect just that. His administration has made "cover all the bases" types of political decisions from the beginning...unfortunately right after what happened to our civil liberties after the previous administration that is not what we, as a country, probably needed (and he campaigned as if he was something else). Is it possible they have dirt on him, possibly, but I think the political danger angle is the more likely and is also why this will have to be forced on by congress (and Republicans in particular as they would be the one's to pounce him were anything to happen after a rollback). This is also why its going to be very hard for these things to be rolled back.

Re:Actually I think its most likely this... (4, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46678739)

they know where his birth certificate is lol

Re:Actually I think its most likely this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679129)

There is serious political downside to doing this.

Consider for example what would have happened had he walked back all these subversions to our liberties 6 months before the Boston Bombing and then what would have happened in the political sphere thereafter. In the end Obama is not a courageous leader who does what is right because its right - he's a very cautious politician and makes decisions that seem to reflect just that. His administration has made "cover all the bases" types of political decisions from the beginning...unfortunately right after what happened to our civil liberties after the previous administration that is not what we, as a country, probably needed (and he campaigned as if he was something else). Is it possible they have dirt on him, possibly, but I think the political danger angle is the more likely and is also why this will have to be forced on by congress (and Republicans in particular as they would be the one's to pounce him were anything to happen after a rollback). This is also why its going to be very hard for these things to be rolled back.

If what you say is true, then is he not reflecting the popular will of the nation? Wouldn't he be anti-democratic if he goes against the will of the majority? That's what many people on slashdot don't seem to get... Most of the country disagrees with us when it comes to these privacy laws. We are a small majority.

Re:Actually I think its most likely this... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46679155)

Fortunately, they don't need to vote to change it. The patriot act is coming for renewal in 2015. All congress has to do is not re-authorize it.

Will it have enough votes? Hard to say.

No Law (0)

readin (838620) | about 7 months ago | (#46678487)

As I seen Obama's use of executive orders, he generally only uses them when there is a law that needs counter-acting. If there were a law requiring the collection of data, Obama could make an executive order to stop the collection of data, or at least delaying the collection of data. But without any such law his hands may be tied.

Re:No Law (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46678575)

Executive orders can only live in grey area of no direct law. They are constitutionally questionable in the first place, but they absolutely cannot be used when there is actual law in place. The law takes precedence.

Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.

Re:No Law (3, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about 6 months ago | (#46678935)

The facts do not support your statement There are dates in the Obamacare law that the president has unilaterally changed:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03... [dailycaller.com]

Re:No Law (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46679045)

Did you read my second paragraph? It's the first time any president attempted that and has yet to play out.

Re:No Law (1)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46679003)

Of course Obama has pushed EOs further then any of his predecessors. He has directly modified obamacare without any legal basis. Gonna suck for the Ds when the shoe is on the other foot.

Yes I am sure they'll put on a nice show and make a phony speech or two against it. Truth is, the corporate sponsors, bankers, and financiers who own both parties will be pleased and they're the ones who matter.

Re:No Law (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46679083)

No. They will issue EOs unilaterally changing Obamacare, just like Obama has. e.g. 5 year maximum subsidies, then everybody pays full price. No employer mandate (push the date back forever). etc etc.

Obama has pushed EOs past the breaking point. He's Caesar, just nobody has noticed yet. I almost hope Hillary wins, Obama is not going to leave office if he loses to a Republican (and his followers will eat it up; 'election was rigged, election was rigged!').

Re:No Law (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46678595)

So you are saying Congress needs to authorize the current activities legislatively, before Obama would feel he had authority to override them by executive order? So as long as the activities are completely illegal he's powerless to stop them, but if they got a legislative fig-leaf then he could stand up to the Republicans by defying them?

You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!

The cat is out of the bag... (1)

TchrBabe (3589445) | about 7 months ago | (#46678491)

...and now everyone knows that it's being done, so why stop? Besides, ever try to put a cat back into a bag? I can't imagine trying to take this "toy" away from the NSA (or other agencies) would be any easier.

Re:The cat is out of the bag... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678541)

But this madness must stop.

Hope and change... (4, Insightful)

fhic (214533) | about 7 months ago | (#46678525)

Once again, this isn't it.

He's had several opportunities to do something about this. He keeps making weaselly attempts to talk about it like he's doing something without actually making any changes. It seems obvious to me that he wants this to continue, much like his equally weasel-ish approach to medical cannabis. And this way, he can blame it on a do-nothing Congress, thus giving his potential successor a talking point.

Obama? Make a decision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678571)

Not going to happen. He'll blame the inaction on Republicans.

Maybe he's FOS? (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about 7 months ago | (#46678601)

Perhaps it's simply lip service? He's talked about putting limits on data collection, but to me it sounds more like "Ok, I poured a little water on the fire but you guys have one more chance to not let the cat out of the bag."

Re:Maybe he's FOS? (4, Funny)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 7 months ago | (#46678615)

He's on it. Its next on his list. Right after he closes Gitmo, creates transparency, reduces the income gap, and fixes heath care (again and again), all while making the world love us again.

reversed just as easily (0)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46678607)

"With a stroke of a pen..."

a Republican president, like say George W. Bush, could put the NSA plan right back into effect

with ***Congress*** passing a law it makes that avenue alot more difficult

there is...ahem...alot of support for NSA reform...

the question should be, why **wont** Republicans in Congress sign off on reform???

i know this explanation has a few levels of complexity so its easier to troll, but i'm right...this is what's happening....Obama does not support a policy of warrantless wiretaps

Re:reversed just as easily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678859)

you mean republicans like Clinton and Democrats like Paul and Issa?

The question you should be asking is why do almost all national polls show either democratic support or indifference to these programs (after details were released) and in general, republican opposition, especially tea party opposition.

Re:reversed just as easily (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46678995)

Is there any angle a tard like you can take to blame Bush for this? That's your homework assignment.

Bush started warrantless NSA spying (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46679189)

Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping program...and the metadata program...Ron Wyden exposed it by talking about it openly in Senate speeches....Obama ended many of the programs Bush started

Bush started the NSA warrantless wiretapping/spying program

that's why I "blame" him for it

here's the evidence: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news... [usatoday.com] from **2006**

"NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"

Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

Re:reversed just as easily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679165)

"with ***Congress*** passing a law it makes that avenue alot more difficult"

"there is...ahem...alot of support for NSA reform..."

alot [blogspot.com]

Re:reversed just as easily (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46679173)

Obama does not support a policy of warrantless wiretaps

Then why did he vote in favor of it when he was in congress? Why didn't he veto it when he had the chance as president? Don't deceive yourself with partisan blindness.

Politics (3, Insightful)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about 7 months ago | (#46678621)

He wants Republicans to vote no on such a change so it can make them look bad. If he just did it by EO it would make him look bad in eyes of Republicans for abusing Executive power.

Because he is and always was one of THEM, not US. (1)

buttfuckinpimpnugget (662332) | about 7 months ago | (#46678629)

What a fucking stupid question.

How Evil! (1)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about 7 months ago | (#46678663)

Expecting Congress to do its job under our constitution and fix bad laws. Everything should be by decree from the White House, that should really protect our liberties alrighty ....

He doesn't want to. (4, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 7 months ago | (#46678673)

Hasn't anybody listened to the man's statements on the subject? He thinks the NSA metadata collection is just peachy keen. It just hasn't been "explained properly" to the public.

A symptom of American exceptionalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46678679)

Are you telling me a government with the capability of knowing who's talking to whom and what about, just about anywhere in the world, would willingly give up that power just because a few protestors got angry their info is getting caught up in the net? You must be joking.

More racism (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 7 months ago | (#46678687)

Between vacations, golf, campaigning and late night TV appearances, where does he have the time?

Obama leads from behind (4, Insightful)

FridayBob (619244) | about 7 months ago | (#46678697)

This is typical of our current President. If pressed on the issue, he might say that he would "prefer" the NSA not to collect phone records on all Americans, but that so far the opponents of the system just haven't been vocal enough about it for him to take any action on the subject. "Hey, Mr. President, where's all that _change_ you promised us?" I'm sure he would prefer to to do all those things, except that his donors would not be too happy about that.

To think that I voted for this guy... twice. Not that the alternatives were any better, but sometimes I wonder if this administration really is any better than the previous one. And I seriously doubt the next one will be any better. Why? Because today the donors are the ones who are actually running the country (with the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission [wikipedia.org] ruling only adding insult to injury). The only solution I can think of is to attack this evil at its source by getting money out of politics [wolf-pac.com] .

because he's a Rothschild nigger slave (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678759)

there, I said what everyone else was scared to say.

why would he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678771)

Does the army volunteer to reduce the number of tanks it has? Does a police officer decide he needs fewer weapons at his disposal? Obama's job is to protect. Why would he give up some capability? Congress (the people) should be deciding what resources he is allowed to use to accomplish that task. And more importantly, ensuring there are checks and balances in place for compliance.

Because they endorse it. (1)

Kuroji (990107) | about 6 months ago | (#46678793)

It's what they want. But he doesn't sign an executive order about it for the same reason that Congress doesn't bring up contempt charges for people who lie to them. They WANT to be lied to. They want to turn a blind eye to it all.

pete t. said it all 40 years ago (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 6 months ago | (#46678795)

"i tip my hat to the new constitution
take a bow for the new revolution
smile and grin at the change all around me...
pick up my guitar and play
just like yesterday
when i get on my knees and pray...
we won't get fooled again"

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

If change can be enacted with a stroke of a pen, i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678841)

Lasting change often requires struggle in order to be properly enacted, it needs to be pushed through congress so that any attempt to reverse the change will also need to be pushed through congress. It's the same thing with the rescheduling of cannabis - the less effort is made putting things right, the less effort the next republican needs to make changing things back.

Because Obama doesn't want to sign one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678849)

Next question.

He found out really happened to JFK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46678863)

If Obama stops the NSA, a lone gunman will happen to make a really lucky shot and Biden will get to become the next president.

Mister President, can we have privacy PLEASE? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 6 months ago | (#46678879)

Obama: NO! YOU CAN'T!

Obama Dirt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679007)

Obama does not want to risk having his personal dirt released to the press (like his actual birth certificate). Besides, unless there was another Snowden how would we know if the intelligence community was obeying the executive order? It would be far more effective to publicly charge Clapper and Alexander with Treason and imprison them for life as an example to the next managers. Preferably hard time, breaking rocks in Leavenworth.

None of their illegal activities has made any difference in the safety of Americans. Intelligence agencies were told that the Boston bombers were dangerous radicals twice, and choose to ignore both warnings. Even with all the snooping going on, bombings and mass shootings still happen regularly. I do not believe for an instant that our intelligence community is that incompetent, so the only conclusion one can draw is that they know and don't care enough to tip off local authorities. There is plenty of past evidence to support this. In WW2 the government knew about Pearl Harbor three days before it happened, they allowed it to happen anyway in order to enrage the citizens and get America into the war. The government knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked by air, and they allowed it to happen as a way of cracking down on civil liberties. If the surveillance community knew for certain that a nuclear weapon was going to be detonated on US soil, THEY WOULD DO NOTHING to prevent it.

I think I would be willing to take my extremely minor chances of being killed in a terrorist attack to have our Constitution fully restored and our corrupt public officials in prison.

Happy day-after-birthday! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679015)

Since the author was apparently born yesterday, I would like to explain a simple concept. When politicians want naive citizens to believe they're doing something when, in fact, they are not doing it and do not want to do it, they will make a big show about doing it in a very roundabout and ineffective way. This has been going on for, oh, all of recorded history.

Because no matter what Obama says (4, Insightful)

exabrial (818005) | about 6 months ago | (#46679069)

It was a program he approved and sponsored no matter what ignorance he claims. We need to hold him accountable, but unfortunately, there is an unhealthy celebrity love affair with this president that he is using to cover the usual dirt that comes with this office.

He can't because of Bush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46679093)

Bush wrote his orders in such a way that no other President can undo them. It requires congress, so this is 100% Bush's fault, and Obama is not allowed to undo it. I hate the people irrationally attacking him for something he simply cannot undo. Please attack the family responsible for it instead. The Bush junta created this and has left it in a state that Democrats cannot legally undo.

Re:He can't because of Bush... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46679137)

Good attempt at satire. You've got the complete lack of logic down (executive orders that can't be changed, funny.) but not the language. The real idiots would have refered to Bush as Shurb or some such and been _much_ less coherent.

Because terrorists (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46679179)

Because terrorists. Go back to Russia, pinko!

Elite fear political awakening... (3, Informative)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 6 months ago | (#46679239)

... this is why obama is not on your side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?