Questions and answers about Obama’s new NSA rules

[j-mac]

Obama is asking a senior White House adviser, John Podesta, to lead a broad review of the use of “big data,” with input from the technology companies and privacy experts.

Questions and answers about Obama’s new NSA rules - The Washington Post

Oh, this doesn't sound creepy, or wrong at all....

 

[Ockham]

Oh, this doesn't sound creepy, or wrong at all....

It's actually a lot of hot air. What or who is the "special judge"? :lol:

Sounds like lip service to placate the masses. Leaving it up to Congress so when nothing or little is done, he has plausible deniability by saying "Well, I tried. It's all Congress fault."

 

[rocket88]

It's actually a lot of hot air. What or who is the "special judge"? :lol:

Sounds like lip service to placate the masses. Leaving it up to Congress so when nothing or little is done, he has plausible deniability by saying "Well, I tried. It's all Congress fault."

He can't change the law without them, but let's face it, it's not like most of Congress is horrified. They approved for the most part, and now everybody's just trying to play "Cover your ass." Now it's up to Boehner to cover his ass.

 

[Objective Voice]

It's actually a lot of hot air. What or who is the "special judge"? :lol:

Sounds like lip service to placate the masses. Leaving it up to Congress so when nothing or little is done, he has plausible deniability by saying "Well, I tried. It's all Congress fault."

Let me get this straight. ..

First, he's a tyrant, an empirical president abusing his executive power and usurping Congress. Now, when he calls on Congress to find ways to ease civil liberty abuses through the legislative process, I.e., "leaving it up to Congress", instead of doing it himself, suddenly he's placating, not hard enough, didn't go far enough?

You guys really crack me up. Power hungry if he does, damned and showing no leadership if he doesn't.

 

[j-mac]

Let me get this straight. ..

First, he's a tyrant, an empirical president abusing his executive power and usurping Congress. Now, when he calls on Congress to find ways to ease civil liberty abuses through the legislative process, I.e., "leaving it up to Congress", instead of doing it himself, suddenly he's placating, not hard enough, didn't go far enough?

You guys really crack me up. Power hungry if he does, damned and showing no leadership if he doesn't.

Nah, he's doing what all Banana Republic dictators do...When there is an outrage over heavy handed tactics like using a government spy agency to spy on their own citizens, then they appoint a propaganda chief to feed the masses a load of BS, while not changing a single thing....Who better at BS than Podesta, a Soros protege progressive, that has a real problem with telling the truth.

 

[Ockham]

Let me get this straight. ..

First, he's a tyrant, an empirical president abusing his executive power and usurping Congress. Now, when he calls on Congress to find ways to ease civil liberty abuses through the legislative process, I.e., "leaving it up to Congress", instead of doing it himself, suddenly he's placating, not hard enough, didn't go far enough?

He does what he needs to do to gain the advantage. If that's playing aggressive by ignoring laws or bypassing laws that's fine with him. If it's getting caught with his pants down and then making obvious and fake steps to placate the people who are outraged to lower the heat, that's fine with him too. What I like is that you believe people can only act one way and it's the false choice method.

You guys really crack me up. Power hungry if he does, damned and showing no leadership if he doesn't.

Firstly, this isn't leadership. A lack of leadership has been consistent. Second... what's a "special judge" - one with turrets syndrome perhaps?

 

[Montecresto]

It's actually a lot of hot air. What or who is the "special judge"? :lol:

Sounds like lip service to placate the masses. Leaving it up to Congress so when nothing or little is done, he has plausible deniability by saying "Well, I tried. It's all Congress fault."

Exactly! The Amash amendment that would have restricted the NSA failed due to lack of GOP support. It had MORE democratic support. So your right, congress will do nothing!

 

[Montecresto]

Deleted.

 

[Montecresto]

Nah, he's doing what all Banana Republic dictators do...When there is an outrage over heavy handed tactics like using a government spy agency to spy on their own citizens, then they appoint a propaganda chief to feed the masses a load of BS, while not changing a single thing....Who better at BS than Podesta, a Soros protege progressive, that has a real problem with telling the truth.

Post #7

 

[Montecresto]

Oh, this doesn't sound creepy, or wrong at all....

We went through this before. Senator Church. 1975, nobody listened to the harsh warnings of potential for NSA abuse then, and no one is likely to listen now. Furthermore, its unlikely we will get from the Soros crony, what we got from Senator Church.


In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee


It should be noted that way back in 1975 Senator Church disclosed that the technology to monitor THE MESSAGES already existed. And consider the advances in technology since.

 

[apdst]

He can't change the law without them, but let's face it, it's not like most of Congress is horrified. They approved for the most part, and now everybody's just trying to play "Cover your ass." Now it's up to Boehner to cover his ass.

Collecting this information isn't mandated by law. There's nothing keeping Marse Barack from just orfering the NSA to end the operation.

 

[apdst]

Exactly! The Amash amendment that would have restricted the NSA failed due to lack of GOP support. It had MORE democratic support. So your right, congress will do nothing!

It's amazing how, again, it's not Marse Barack's fault.

 

[rocket88]

Collecting this information isn't mandated by law. There's nothing keeping Marse Barack from just orfering the NSA to end the operation.

I suppose he could, but could you imagine the outcry from Congressional Repubs? Most of them are completely happy with it. I mean, he did inherit it from Marse George didn't he? Something that Marse George passed through a Congress that was friendly to him, as I recall.

 

[Montecresto]

Collecting this information isn't mandated by law. There's nothing keeping Marse Barack from just orfering the NSA to end the operation.

This is true. But don't hold your breathe that the next president, regardless of party, will either.

 

[Montecresto]

It's amazing how, again, it's not Marse Barack's fault.

Oh no, I'm not saying that at all! It's every bodies fault. And as stated above, Obama could end it? If you want it ended though, you need a guy that thinks like Rand Paul on security/liberty issues.

 

[Montecresto]

I suppose he could, but could you imagine the outcry from Congressional Repubs? Most of them are completely happy with it. I mean, he did inherit it from Marse George didn't he? Something that Marse George passed through a Congress that was friendly to him, as I recall.

Precisely. Which is a demonstration on how partisan Americans are enablers to their party. It's such a bummer that so many Americans are democrats first, and Americans second, and the same with republicans.

 

[polgara]

Collecting this information isn't mandated by law. There's nothing keeping Marse Barack from just orfering the NSA to end the operation.

Which he has already stated he will not do! For "security" reasons we must continue to spy on the American people. Perfectly understandable, you know, because we are an evil bunch of dastardly no-goods that requires constant surveillance! Yep, it's money well spent!

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

 

[Montecresto]

Which he has already stated he will not do! For "security" reasons we must continue to spy on the American people. Perfectly understandable, you know, because we are an evil bunch of dastardly no-goods that requires constant surveillance! Yep, it's money well spent!

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

Hi Polgara, you know the saying of what you get when you allow security to trump liberty!

 

[polgara]

Hi Polgara, you know the saying of what you get when you allow security to trump liberty!

Good morning, Montecresto. :2wave: Good to see you!

I believe Ben Franklin said it best, and I paraphrase: When you allow security to trump liberty, you deserve neither, and when the pillars of a free society are dissolved, tyranny is erected on its ruins. I agree with Old Ben! :thumbs:

 

[Montecresto]

Good morning, Montecresto. :2wave: Good to see you!

I believe Ben Franklin said it best, and I paraphrase: When you allow security to trump liberty, you deserve neither, and when the pillars of a free society are dissolved, tyranny is erected on its ruins. I agree with Old Ben! :thumbs:

Yep, that's the one. And the underlying tone of Obama's speech yesterday was security. I'd like to see a transcript of the speech and count the times he used the word, and justified and defended the program on it.

 

[apdst]

I suppose he could, but could you imagine the outcry from Congressional Repubs? Most of them are completely happy with it. I mean, he did inherit it from Marse George didn't he? Something that Marse George passed through a Congress that was friendly to him, as I recall.

It's NEVER Marse Barack's fault!...lol!

 

[polgara]

Yep, that's the one. And the underlying tone of Obama's speech yesterday was security. I'd like to see a transcript of the speech and count the times he used the word, and justified and defended the program on it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I used to feel a lot more secure before we had drones flying around spying on everyone, and learning that our e-mails and other private correspondence was being monitored, recorded and stored somewhere. I haven't changed, but our government sure has, and not for the better! It almost seems sometimes that they are hoping for a reason to cause riots and other civil unrest so they can declare martial law and do away with all the liberties we haven't lost yet. Could this happen In America? Horrifyingly unbelievable!

 

[Kal'Stang]

Q: Will the government get out of my phone records?

A: For now, the NSA will keep collecting and storing call data.

The program gathers the phone numbers called and the length of conversations, but not the content of the calls. Obama says the NSA needs to tap those records sometimes to find people linked to suspected terrorists.

But eventually he wants the bulk data to be stored somewhere out of the government’s hands, to reduce the risk that the information will be abused.

Of course they're still going to gather the data. The government doesn't care about The Peoples Right to Privacy....or any Right really.

Bold: You have GOT to be FREAKING KIDDING ME!!! Reduce the risk by putting it in private corporations hands? They already collect all the data that they legally can and sell it to the highest bidder or use it themselves and now they're going to get the Federal Governments help in doing this crap? Jesus H. Christ.

In the meantime, Obama ordered two immediate changes:

—Analysts hunting through data will have to stay a little closer to the original suspected terrorist or organization. They will be able to look at communications two steps away, instead of three.
—The administration will require a special judge’s advance approval before intelligence agencies can examine someone’s data. The NSA has been able to decide for itself whether it has reasonable cause to run a query.

Underlined: Yeah...right. *sniffs* I smell BS here.
Bold: What...you mean the very same judge/s that OK'd the NSA's ability to collect the data in the first place? Fat lot of good that is going to do.

Q: What about the NSA reading my email or watching my online activities?

A: The bulk collection of online data is supposed to target only people outside the United States, as part of national security investigations. But it does end up sweeping up information about some Americans in the process. Obama asked Holder and Clapper to consider whether new privacy safeguards could be added.

Didn't actually answer the question. The answer implies that the info gathered from emails and online activities is only gotten through the process of collecting that data while investigating foreign emails and online activities and terrorist activities, IE "collateral damage". The question however was asking about all the email and online activities gathered as a meta data process. In otherwords the data that was gathered from millions of people that they had no reason to gather data about. You know..innocent civilians of the United States.

Q: What about the phone calls and emails of people living abroad?

A: Obama says the U.S. should respect the privacy of non-Americans, too. He said he will extend to foreigners some of the protections against spying that apply to U.S. citizens. He directed Holder and Clapper to look into new restrictions on how long the U.S. can hold data collected overseas and how that data is used.

The U.S. won’t spy on ordinary people who don’t threaten national security, Obama says.

He issued a directive saying that intelligence-gathering can’t be employed to suppress criticism of the United States or provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies.

Underlined: :lamo: What a joke. It's already been shown that they completely ignore the most important restriction that there is...the Right to Privacy. Like this "new" restriction is actually going to be followed. :roll:. Not to mention they could just put a "limit" of 150 years and they would "technically" be following that rule...despite the fact that those people would be long dead and the info would be worthless anyways.

Bold: Double speak. Who is it that determines who is a threat and who isn't? Oh yeah...the government. Who obviously considers EVERYONE to be a threat except themselves. And even that is debateable at times.

Rest: And just how is this going to be enforced? Supposedly the IRS doing what they did regarding suppressing "wasn't the governments fault". If they can't control their own people then why should we believe this clap trap? Assuming he's telling the truth of course. Next to Bush and a few other Presidents Obama ranks among the top 10 of the biggest liars so we really have no reason to believe this.

I could say much more regarding these "questions and answers" but quite frankly I'm already wading hip deep in crap from the BS answers given in that article and my hip waders are only so big.

 

[Redbeard]

I don't know about anyone else, but I used to feel a lot more secure before we had drones flying around spying on everyone, and learning that our e-mails and other private correspondence was being monitored, recorded and stored somewhere. I haven't changed, but our government sure has, and not for the better! It almost seems sometimes that they are hoping for a reason to cause riots and other civil unrest so they can declare martial law and do away with all the liberties we haven't lost yet. Could this happen In America? Horrifyingly unbelievable!

An excerpt from President Eisenhower’s January 17th, 1961 farewell speech. Ironically, Obama used the same day to make his NSA speech.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

He (President (General) Eisenhower) has also been quoted as saying, when speaking to aides “I know those boys” (down at the Pentagon and worry that) “one day there’s going to be a president that knows less about the military than I do”

 

[Montecresto]

An excerpt from President Eisenhower’s January 17th, 1961 farewell speech. Ironically, Obama used the same day to make his NSA speech.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

He (President (General) Eisenhower) has also been quoted as saying, when speaking to aides “I know those boys” (down at the Pentagon and worry that) “one day there’s going to be a president that knows less about the military than I do”

Yep, no one listened.