Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Hey, remember when Obama was the president that respected privacy, stood up for civil liberties, and was going to accept the existence of whistleblowers exposing inefficient or unlawful programs? Yeah, me neither.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[DWC]

Well, the stuff he leaked about the foreign spying isn't really covered under whistle blowing. That's just regular espionage and they can still put him in prison for that.

Funny though Obama seems totally unscathed with the leaking of this domestic surveillance crap. I know Ol' Dubbya kick started the whole thing, but Obama has kept it going, renewed the PATRIOT Act and all that. If it was revealed under Bush, you'd know there would be at least some protesters with some clever placards around DC or something, somebody somewhere.

Next election cycle everyone will be shouting themselves hoarse for some other president to roll back their rights and freedom. Like Noam Chomsky said, a country gets the government it deserves.

[SalmonGod]

Funny though Obama seems totally unscathed with the leaking of this domestic surveillance crap.

I don't know where you get that idea.  The whole thing has been plenty controversial, and Obama has received plenty of criticism in the midst of it.  Yeah, the backlash isn't what it should be and there are plenty of people who excuse it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all.

[Zangi]

Insider Threat program initiated by Obama encourages government employees to report co-workers who may be interested in leaking information, and even threatens criminal charges against anyone who fails to do so.

Not sure how much this is sensationalized.  Don't have time at the moment to check multiple sources, but still wanted to share.

HOPE you like paranoia

The atmosphere at the workplace is going to end up being stifling, knowing that your co-workers are required to distrust you and you are required to distrust them.  There is probably even a bonus package for outing people too.

[Scoops Novel]

Funny though Obama seems totally unscathed with the leaking of this domestic surveillance crap.

I don't know where you get that idea.  The whole thing has been plenty controversial, and Obama has received plenty of criticism in the midst of it.  Yeah, the backlash isn't what it should be and there are plenty of people who excuse it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all.

I still don't know why this hasn't done more. I'd like to see how the impact varies across age groups. I'll post if i find anything interesting.

[DWC]

Funny though Obama seems totally unscathed with the leaking of this domestic surveillance crap.

I don't know where you get that idea.  The whole thing has been plenty controversial, and Obama has received plenty of criticism in the midst of it.  Yeah, the backlash isn't what it should be and there are plenty of people who excuse it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all.

Maybe the ACLU and libertarian types are, but they are a minority. I guess the traditional anti-Obama crowd actually supports this PATRIOT Act and surveillance madness and traditional liberals that back Obama are never against something that gives the government more control and responsibility.

You'd think at least one protest representing some non-fringe ideology, somewhere over this shit? Some non-partisan people out there besides the ACLU and 'internet anarchist' types opposing this shit?

[GlyphGryph]

It really is weird. It's brought the Authoritarian liberals and conservatives together in support of the government doing the right thing, and freedom-loving liberals and conservatives together in opposition.

The support and opposition are both very much bipartisan affairs, with the vast bulk of people seeming to just want to cover their ears and eyes because they don't want to know what the government is up to.

Regardless, at least here in New England pretty much every liberal I know who actually follows politics dislikes Obama now, primarily because of this. Many of them don't want to talk about it because they are afraid of being lumped in with the uber-crazy conservatives who constantly launch irrelevant vitriol his way (usually while supporting him on the things he actually fucks up) but there is a lot of grumbling and general desire for an alternative - but people don't know what to do. What IS the alternative? Obama was supposed to BE the alternative - he promised everything they wanted, they voted for him, and he... turned out to be everything they hated.

What can they do? What can they actually do? I get the feeling that for anyone who is politically aware, they are just frustrated and they've had their hope, the thing Obama sailed in on, dashed. What's the point of getting angry and upset? What's the chance it actually changes something this time, when it hasn't before,  and your ostensible allies the low information voters who go for the straight party ticket, your silent base of support, are now essentially your enemy because they just don't care about anything beyond keeping the Republicans out?

[palsch]

...traditional liberals that back Obama are never against something that gives the government more control and responsibility.

Only seen one actual article taking this line and that was this one from a hard-left individual. I haven't seen any groups or even other people signing up to that argument.

None of Snowden’s revelations thus far indicate that kind of government overreach. While the documents released provide ample evidence of data collection activities, nothing to date involves examples of actual government snooping into the contents of telephone calls, email, or other private correspondence without judicial oversight and approval.

We should do all we can to assure proper oversight any time a surveillance program of any size and scope is launched. But it helps no one, least of all those who see a role for government in leveling the playing field between concentrated privilege and the rest of us, to reflexively delegitimize the government’s efforts.

As people who believe in government, we cannot simply assume that officials are abusing their lawfully granted responsibility and authority to defend our people from violence and harm. If that’s not a proper function of government, I don’t know what is.

But the more the Left aids and abets the reactionary Right’s cynical critique of government, the more both sides make the case to replace collective mission and accountability with the free hand of the market. Just as with schools, healthcare and prisons, if we condemn national security agencies entirely, we’re in danger of more and more of them being run by private contractors and paid for by us.

Defense of life, freedom and property is a legitimate function of government. Carrying out that function effectively in a democratic society involves an almost continual calibration along a scale marked by civil liberties and transparency on one pole, and by expediency and stealth on the other. Finding the right alignment requires a vigilant citizenry and press as well as well as vibrant and responsive legislative and judicial branches of government.

The actual support has been far more passive than that.

[DWC]

...traditional liberals that back Obama are never against something that gives the government more control and responsibility.

Only seen one actual article taking this line and that was this one from a hard-left individual. I haven't seen any groups or even other people signing up to that argument.

The actual support has been far more passive than that.

That's the ideological argument for it for the right and left, this guy was just honest and I'd say educated enough to make the assertion. This PATRIOT Act and this surveillance program was voted into law by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including regular liberal democrats and republicans. Yes, 'defense of life, freedom and property is a legitimate function of government' and that line could just as well have come from Ayn Rand or Ron Paul as anybody on the left. It's not obvious the government has abused this surveillance program either. The problem is that it's still overreaching. It's a waste of tax payer money, it's too big, too powerful, too secretive, too easily abused to trust to this government. It might be used to prosecute foreign terrorists today, or it might be used to prosecute common criminals tomorrow. Or it could go straight IRS and turn it's focus on fringe political groups, digging up dirt on it's people to jail them for unrelated indiscretions. Or abused in any number of ways to further an agenda of whoever happens to be in power at the moment.

It's too powerful a tool that could be exploited to further less noble goals then keeping people safe from terrorists. Terrorism is an overstated problem anyways, way too much money is being poured away toward it. Any power a government or corporation has that isn't completely accountable is going to have the potential to be abused and this program can't be risked.

[Sheb]

By the way, there totally was some protesters in DC with smart placards.

[DG]

This seems to be a direct result of Snowden's leak:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-prism-yahoo-court-idUSBRE96F1A120130716

The US government has been ordered to declassify the 2008 court decision justifying Prism.

[Scoops Novel]

If something is said to be done about this in the US, are people likely to buy it?

[DWC]

If something is said to be done about this in the US, are people likely to buy it?

The government is just going to show their court decision to explain why this system is in place and in their eyes, demonstrate why there are correct and legal for doing so.

Hint: The whole purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to enable the government to have a program like Prism. Since they've revised and scrutinized the act and removed the particularly unconstitutional bits, the leftover is still enough to make Prism constitutional 100% Alexander Hamilton- approved legal and just government business, so they'll conclude.

[Scoops Novel]

Not my question. If the U.S government claim to do something about the program; stringent safeguards, open rulings, publicly available protocols, what have you, will U.S citizens believe that something similar to whatever happens to be the current state of affairs isn't going on regardless?

[DWC]

Not my question. If the U.S government claim to do something about the program; stringent safeguards, open rulings, publicly available protocols, what have you, will U.S citizens believe that something similar to whatever happens to be the current state of affairs isn't going on regardless?

Man you worded that in such as way as to have myself read the proposition such as it was multiple times until I figured it out, insomuch.

I dunno. Americans are paranoid and distrustful of the government. All the TV shows with their narratives about corruption and conspiracies and spying and mysterious black projects and what have you.

People think the government is more competent and powerful then it really is, so foul ups and mistakes are seen as malign intent by shadowy actors. Never the guy they voted for, of course. I really believe most people suspected domestic surveillance like this anyways, so when it was revealed that is actually was, nobody was surprised or outraged. If they made the program more transparent and accountable, that'd probably make people complain about it less, but they'd still suspect the government is doing something dodgy with it anyways.