Obama, FISA,Faith & Iran
Readers of this blog know that I have been a supporter of Barack Obama since I first met him at a party David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Speilberg threw in February of 2007 to intoduce Barack and Michelle to Hollywood. At the time it was assumed that Hillary had Hollywood tied up in her campaign and so this party was a real shock to the Clinonistas in town. So in the last week friends, daughters and sons have asked me “what’s up with Barack” on this move to the center? So I start by saying that every indicator, including the The Poll of Tracking Polls on the left tell me that they are running a superb campaign. Of course it is in the self interest of the Chris Matthews of this world to pretend like the race is much closer than it is. But all indications say that the last ten days of Barack getting attacked from the left has helped his numbers.
So let me take the three issues in order.First FISA. The good thing about the rewritten FISA bill is that it establishes the power of the FISA court over NSA spying on Americans, whether in the U.S. or abroad. The warrants have to be obtained within seven days. So no phone company will allow one of these “passthrough-wiretaps” without the FISA warrant.
As to the immunity for the telecoms, from Barack’s point of view starting in January 2009, I can’t imagine he wants to start his term in the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” business, investigating AT&T, Verizon, et al. through whose switches flow 90% of the country’s internet traffic. I know there are lots of people on the left who want revenge on the big telecoms, but it’s a fools errand. First off to think you have any privacy is pretty naive. That super market club card that gets you all those discounts is used to sell your profile to thousands of companies. Finally, because the Republicans since Reagan and with the help of Clinton in the Telecom Act of 1996, we have a Duopoly/Oligopoly structure to the media/telecom sector. Therefore, any attempt to do any sort of 21st Century detective work, will require having access to the networks of the duopolists (AT&T & Verizon; Comcast and Time Warner). What the law now says is that a warrant from FISA has to be provided.
Whether the Internet should be privately owned is another question–one that Vint Cerf of Google is raising.
On Faith. This one I don’t get. Obama has made it very clear from the outset that he personally saw the power of the faith community when he was a community organizer. The younger generation of Millennials never had the personal experience of seeing Rev. William Sloan Coffin lead a Peace March or Rev. Martin Luther King be carried away in handcuffs. They think that Faith Based community means Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Well it doesn’t and the left better get ready to break bread with the Stewardship community.
Iran The cooler heads like Bob Gates, Joe Biden and Barack Obama know what’s going on.
Senate foreign affairs panel chairman Joseph Biden called on the Bush administration to hold direct talks with Iran similar to those with North Korea that led to commitments to end the hardline communist state’s nuclear weapons drive.
We should be wary of John McCains immediate embrace of the Reagan like “Missle Shield” over Europe as the perfect Military Industrial Complex answer to the new Iranian threat. As Juan Cole Points out, the shifting sands in the Mid East are upsetting McCain’s balance. Even on Iraq he has problems.
McCain always had a difficult case to make to the American people about why they needed to expend blood and treasure to stay in Iraq. McCain maintains that it is for their own safety, but polling shows that most people do not buy that argument. Now McCain has to argue for keeping the troops there even though the Iraqi people and even the pro-American prime minister do not want them there.
That position will sound like colonialism to many Americans– an expensive, sanguinary colonialism that they have to pay for. Individual Americans, including babies, have spent $2,000 each on the Iraq War so far, money a lot of them wish they had back right now (that is $8000 for a family of four.) Between its lack of legitimacy and its cost, they typically don’t want it.
Ultimately I am convinced that Obama is the best candidate to run for the presidency since Bobby Kennedy. This country needs so much healing. As The Band said, we need to get “across the great divide”. For all the critique from the left, which God Knows I heard in the spring of 1968 when I went with Kennedy–Obama is a transformational progressive candidate. Just remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Thanks for your perspective. It’s hard, in these times, to decide if we’re being smart to support an imperfect campaign/campaigner, or being patsies.
It takes too much energy to stay pissed off. I’m inclined to go with the ‘understanding’ perspective at this moment. I appreciate the food for thought.
Thanks for your perspective. It’s hard, in these times, to decide if we’re being smart to support an imperfect campaign/campaigner, or being patsies.
It takes too much energy to stay pissed off. I’m inclined to go with the ‘understanding’ perspective at this moment. I appreciate the food for thought.
Jon, this gets to be like the pissed-off women who claim to be so anti-Obama. So who are they going to vote for, McCain? Can you say, “Cut off your nose to spite your face.”?
Jon, this gets to be like the pissed-off women who claim to be so anti-Obama. So who are they going to vote for, McCain? Can you say, “Cut off your nose to spite your face.”?
“First off to think you have any privacy is pretty naive.”
_______
See David Brin’s “The Transparent Society.”
I’m blogging the privacy thing as we speak, BTW. Gonna be a long one.
“First off to think you have any privacy is pretty naive.”
_______
See David Brin’s “The Transparent Society.”
I’m blogging the privacy thing as we speak, BTW. Gonna be a long one.
Yeah, I’ve been pretty pro-Obama for a while, but voting for the FISA bill is a true shame. To say, ‘you don’t have any privacy left, so why be bothered when the government violates it?’ is a sham argument, and one I’m surprised to hear you state, Jon. It’s a shame he voted as he did, and I think frankly he made a bad choice on an important issue and continues to make statements that indicate he’s a candidate with wildly different view on the the importance of the rights of citizens versus the need to keep us theoretically safer.
That being said, I think he’s far and away the most exciting serious candidate we’ve had for president in a long time. Even if I think he’s totally wrong on some very important issues, the other ones are also important. Certainly the republicans aren’t any better FISA.
Yeah, I’ve been pretty pro-Obama for a while, but voting for the FISA bill is a true shame. To say, ‘you don’t have any privacy left, so why be bothered when the government violates it?’ is a sham argument, and one I’m surprised to hear you state, Jon. It’s a shame he voted as he did, and I think frankly he made a bad choice on an important issue and continues to make statements that indicate he’s a candidate with wildly different view on the the importance of the rights of citizens versus the need to keep us theoretically safer.
That being said, I think he’s far and away the most exciting serious candidate we’ve had for president in a long time. Even if I think he’s totally wrong on some very important issues, the other ones are also important. Certainly the republicans aren’t any better FISA.
If Obama makes the same calculations and decisions as other politicians, such as your suggestion that he’d prefer telcos get immunity to avoid dealing with their prosecution on his watch then he’s no change for any better, is he?
Granting telcos immunity from prosecution is accepting Bushs doctrine of executive exception from the rule of law.
There’s no two ways about that and being on the wrong side of that vote puts the lie to a hope of Obama representing a return to the rule of law in the U.S.
His deed is his action that speaks louder than his words.
If Obama makes the same calculations and decisions as other politicians, such as your suggestion that he’d prefer telcos get immunity to avoid dealing with their prosecution on his watch then he’s no change for any better, is he?
Granting telcos immunity from prosecution is accepting Bushs doctrine of executive exception from the rule of law.
There’s no two ways about that and being on the wrong side of that vote puts the lie to a hope of Obama representing a return to the rule of law in the U.S.
His deed is his action that speaks louder than his words.
Jon, there is a world of difference between voluntarily choosing to give your personal information to a supermarket (I don’t do this) and companies and the government colluding to illegally engage in bulk domestic surveillance without a warrant or particularized suspicion. Announcing that privacy is dead is like announcing that Writs of Assistance don’t matter because the village gossips already know everything that a king’s agent might discover by kicking down your door.
The business about a duopoly is a red herring. Verizon *refused* to illegally wiretap its customers (unlike AT&T). Duopoly had nothing to do with the shameful period in American history in which the executive branch betrayed its oath to uphold the Bill of Rights (particularly the Fourth Amendment), nor does it have anything to do with the shameful period we’re entering now, when cynical politicians fail to uphold their promises to bring companies to justice for their extraordinary and illegal acts.
No one asked Obama to hold a truth and reconcilliation hearing — telco immunity was about whether the judicial branch would be able to continue to investigate the lawfulness of the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. Granting the administrative branch the authority to tell the judicial branch that it isn’t allowed to investigate its wrongdoing isn’t avoiding “truth and reconcilliation” — it’s tearing up the idea of checks and balances on executive power.
Obama may have believed that supporting bulk surveillance and removing checks on the executive was politically expedient — he may even have been right. But he wasn’t noble, he wasn’t true to the foundational values of America, and he wasn’t simply addressing the cold reality the rest of us can’t bear to look at.
Jon, there is a world of difference between voluntarily choosing to give your personal information to a supermarket (I don’t do this) and companies and the government colluding to illegally engage in bulk domestic surveillance without a warrant or particularized suspicion. Announcing that privacy is dead is like announcing that Writs of Assistance don’t matter because the village gossips already know everything that a king’s agent might discover by kicking down your door.
The business about a duopoly is a red herring. Verizon *refused* to illegally wiretap its customers (unlike AT&T). Duopoly had nothing to do with the shameful period in American history in which the executive branch betrayed its oath to uphold the Bill of Rights (particularly the Fourth Amendment), nor does it have anything to do with the shameful period we’re entering now, when cynical politicians fail to uphold their promises to bring companies to justice for their extraordinary and illegal acts.
No one asked Obama to hold a truth and reconcilliation hearing — telco immunity was about whether the judicial branch would be able to continue to investigate the lawfulness of the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. Granting the administrative branch the authority to tell the judicial branch that it isn’t allowed to investigate its wrongdoing isn’t avoiding “truth and reconcilliation” — it’s tearing up the idea of checks and balances on executive power.
Obama may have believed that supporting bulk surveillance and removing checks on the executive was politically expedient — he may even have been right. But he wasn’t noble, he wasn’t true to the foundational values of America, and he wasn’t simply addressing the cold reality the rest of us can’t bear to look at.
It’s hard for me to put it better than Cory, who is eloquent as ever, but it seems that your arguments in defense of Obama’s votes are weak at best.
I understand the desire not to “start his term in the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ business”, but there are a number of other ways that this could be end could be achieved, the easiest and simplest one being to simply let the courts take care of it by themselves.
Raising the fact that the telcos are a duopoly, and that we will have to work with them in the future doesn’t seem to be relevant. Assuming that we follow due process they will work with us, and if they want to check that those subpoenas are properly signed twice after having been burned, well, I think that’s a good thing not a bad one.
Finally, simply claiming that privacy is already dead, and that because it is we should all simply allow it to be further violated is a straw man. First this is obviously not actually the case, Though if one is casual about their privacy it is frequently distributed, one can be careful about it and prevent virtually all of it from leaking out. More importantly, there is a qualitative difference between the local merchant peaking in your window to seek what kind of butter you are using and the government peaking in your window to see if they should pursue arresting you. But most importantly of all, this was one of the few chunks of privacy that we still had in place by rule of law. It was removed without following due process, and without the consent, even by proxy, of the governed. If we are going to move to a transparent society, an idea that I’m not entirely against, it needs to be done in a legal, well debated, and open way.
Obama blew this one badly. He may be advertising hope and change, but I’m no longer convinced he has any in stock. What I had been starting to suspect is coming readily into focus, Obama is simply the lesser of two evils.
It’s hard for me to put it better than Cory, who is eloquent as ever, but it seems that your arguments in defense of Obama’s votes are weak at best.
I understand the desire not to “start his term in the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ business”, but there are a number of other ways that this could be end could be achieved, the easiest and simplest one being to simply let the courts take care of it by themselves.
Raising the fact that the telcos are a duopoly, and that we will have to work with them in the future doesn’t seem to be relevant. Assuming that we follow due process they will work with us, and if they want to check that those subpoenas are properly signed twice after having been burned, well, I think that’s a good thing not a bad one.
Finally, simply claiming that privacy is already dead, and that because it is we should all simply allow it to be further violated is a straw man. First this is obviously not actually the case, Though if one is casual about their privacy it is frequently distributed, one can be careful about it and prevent virtually all of it from leaking out. More importantly, there is a qualitative difference between the local merchant peaking in your window to seek what kind of butter you are using and the government peaking in your window to see if they should pursue arresting you. But most importantly of all, this was one of the few chunks of privacy that we still had in place by rule of law. It was removed without following due process, and without the consent, even by proxy, of the governed. If we are going to move to a transparent society, an idea that I’m not entirely against, it needs to be done in a legal, well debated, and open way.
Obama blew this one badly. He may be advertising hope and change, but I’m no longer convinced he has any in stock. What I had been starting to suspect is coming readily into focus, Obama is simply the lesser of two evils.
Obama knows how to count votes and understands that Bush and the telco lobby had this sewn up. So he votes with the good guys on some amendments and then walks away pretending to be happy with the result. Message: Obama is above the fray.
He’s running for president and there’s a hell of a lot at stake. I’ll rely on his judgment about how to make these tactical calls.
Meanwhile, some of the people he’s dissing while “Playing to Peoria(tm)” will choose to express their frustration in pretty frank terms.
That’s good politics too, because the angry reaction from those the mainstream media consider “not serious people” just helps to convince them that Obama really has moved to the right. The whole point of the exercise, really, is to generate negative reactions from people the right hates. Message: Obama not owned by scary “lefties”.
Let’s hope this closes the deal in Montana and Virginia and Ohio, etc. That seems to be the bet Obama is making.
Obama knows how to count votes and understands that Bush and the telco lobby had this sewn up. So he votes with the good guys on some amendments and then walks away pretending to be happy with the result. Message: Obama is above the fray.
He’s running for president and there’s a hell of a lot at stake. I’ll rely on his judgment about how to make these tactical calls.
Meanwhile, some of the people he’s dissing while “Playing to Peoria(tm)” will choose to express their frustration in pretty frank terms.
That’s good politics too, because the angry reaction from those the mainstream media consider “not serious people” just helps to convince them that Obama really has moved to the right. The whole point of the exercise, really, is to generate negative reactions from people the right hates. Message: Obama not owned by scary “lefties”.
Let’s hope this closes the deal in Montana and Virginia and Ohio, etc. That seems to be the bet Obama is making.
I’d vote for a truth and reconciliation commission. But then I voted for Kevin Rudd.
Sometimes you have to be expedient but you don’t have to love everything a candidate does.
I’d vote for a truth and reconciliation commission. But then I voted for Kevin Rudd.
Sometimes you have to be expedient but you don’t have to love everything a candidate does.
Cory, please define, “particularized suspicion.” Loophole meet the truck.
If you want to cast categorical stones, this is what you have to stand behind: foreign originating phone calls from Pakistan being terminated in Iran. Are we allowed to listen without a warrant?
More so, companies that agreed / agree to help the war on terror, can be sued by a bunch of Imams?
Mah point being, it’d be much better if you stated first what you are prepared to do legalistically (clear policy) to solve the problem than pretend you are a college under-graduate given points just for rallying against someone else with the wrong answer.
You’ve been around. There is no valid criticism without a defined measurable counter plan. Because the gut check argument is, “do we have to do something?” and since the answer is yes, the winner is always the guy with a plan, so what’s yours?
hi to Mark.
Cory, please define, “particularized suspicion.” Loophole meet the truck.
If you want to cast categorical stones, this is what you have to stand behind: foreign originating phone calls from Pakistan being terminated in Iran. Are we allowed to listen without a warrant?
More so, companies that agreed / agree to help the war on terror, can be sued by a bunch of Imams?
Mah point being, it’d be much better if you stated first what you are prepared to do legalistically (clear policy) to solve the problem than pretend you are a college under-graduate given points just for rallying against someone else with the wrong answer.
You’ve been around. There is no valid criticism without a defined measurable counter plan. Because the gut check argument is, “do we have to do something?” and since the answer is yes, the winner is always the guy with a plan, so what’s yours?
hi to Mark.
Appreciate your heads-up approach to FISA an related issues. Given the opportunity Obama has to reclaim the trust from the people. Whether his ideas or leadership can be translated through his cabinet selections is yet to be seen.
American people want change, they want believe in their government. They want to support a true leader that excepts the responsibilities of office an can build a staff that reflects the same.
Surveillance is here to stay, regardless which side your on. Privacy – thanks Jon that though was thrown out the window when I signed up to have Telemarketers stop calling…
Appreciate your heads-up approach to FISA an related issues. Given the opportunity Obama has to reclaim the trust from the people. Whether his ideas or leadership can be translated through his cabinet selections is yet to be seen.
American people want change, they want believe in their government. They want to support a true leader that excepts the responsibilities of office an can build a staff that reflects the same.
Surveillance is here to stay, regardless which side your on. Privacy – thanks Jon that though was thrown out the window when I signed up to have Telemarketers stop calling…
The Democrats and especially their leader complicated world-view Obama could have used this opportunity to take a stand against the bogus “war on terror” by educating americans that there aren’t any groups of terrorists within the US plotting to attack and it’s unnecessary and ineffective to do this type of surveillance. But this is typical of the spineless Dems who’ve signed off on way too much of the Bush regime’s abuses and fear to impeach war criminals because they’ll lose votes. Will their behavior change with a landslide in November?
The Democrats and especially their leader complicated world-view Obama could have used this opportunity to take a stand against the bogus “war on terror” by educating americans that there aren’t any groups of terrorists within the US plotting to attack and it’s unnecessary and ineffective to do this type of surveillance. But this is typical of the spineless Dems who’ve signed off on way too much of the Bush regime’s abuses and fear to impeach war criminals because they’ll lose votes. Will their behavior change with a landslide in November?
The immunity granted the telecoms is civil immunity. This means the cases brought by the people are shut down, these cases had no gov’t involvement except the judge. No “Truth and Reconciliation” panel needed.
The only option left is gov’t involvement and striking up a T&R panel.
The immunity granted the telecoms is civil immunity. This means the cases brought by the people are shut down, these cases had no gov’t involvement except the judge. No “Truth and Reconciliation” panel needed.
The only option left is gov’t involvement and striking up a T&R panel.
If laws were broken (as they appear to have been) there is no need for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. There is a need to let the Department of Justice and the courts DO THEIR JOB.
Retroactive immunity is nothing less than the legislative branch disemboweling the judicial, couching your argument in the terminology of post-apartheid South Africa is insult both to those who suffered and died under white rule there and to those here who believe in the rule of law.
Shame on you.
If laws were broken (as they appear to have been) there is no need for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. There is a need to let the Department of Justice and the courts DO THEIR JOB.
Retroactive immunity is nothing less than the legislative branch disemboweling the judicial, couching your argument in the terminology of post-apartheid South Africa is insult both to those who suffered and died under white rule there and to those here who believe in the rule of law.
Shame on you.
It’s naive to think that we have privacy, therefore we should simply sign off on total immunity for the most massive criminal invasion of citizen privacy in history?
I disagree.
Obama has signalled only too clearly that he can and will be steamrollered by megacorporations in the name of political expediency.
Get ready for four more years of the same, regardless of who is elected.
Also, check out S. 1959. We’re moving closer to making dissent a crime. As I’ve said before, this FISA bill is only the beginning.
It’s naive to think that we have privacy, therefore we should simply sign off on total immunity for the most massive criminal invasion of citizen privacy in history?
I disagree.
Obama has signalled only too clearly that he can and will be steamrollered by megacorporations in the name of political expediency.
Get ready for four more years of the same, regardless of who is elected.
Also, check out S. 1959. We’re moving closer to making dissent a crime. As I’ve said before, this FISA bill is only the beginning.
Jon, you and I agree on many things.
I personally believe, however, that Obama may have killed his chances at the Presidency with this. He’s pissed off the progressive left, which will now go to Nader, someone else or not vote; and he’s pissed off the centrists, like me, who will just go to McCain. At least I know McCain — he’s a typical polician. I can work with that. Obama just mystified me with this one.
I’m astonished at his move, frankly.
What’s more of a disappointment is that I really see him now as a calculating politician, like all the rest, not as a man of core principle. While that may be an unfair characterization, I was actually getting a bit hypnotized by his rhetoric.
My disgust is complete.
And don’t think that this isn’t a minor issue. The Senators are out of touch with how powerful the Blogposphere is, and how inclined the Blogosphere is toward protecting civil liberties. There’s a shitload of seriously pissed off people out there.
Alex
Jon, you and I agree on many things.
I personally believe, however, that Obama may have killed his chances at the Presidency with this. He’s pissed off the progressive left, which will now go to Nader, someone else or not vote; and he’s pissed off the centrists, like me, who will just go to McCain. At least I know McCain — he’s a typical polician. I can work with that. Obama just mystified me with this one.
I’m astonished at his move, frankly.
What’s more of a disappointment is that I really see him now as a calculating politician, like all the rest, not as a man of core principle. While that may be an unfair characterization, I was actually getting a bit hypnotized by his rhetoric.
My disgust is complete.
And don’t think that this isn’t a minor issue. The Senators are out of touch with how powerful the Blogposphere is, and how inclined the Blogosphere is toward protecting civil liberties. There’s a shitload of seriously pissed off people out there.
Alex
Cory- There was also a story about Qwest refusing to participate in illegal wiretapping, although that allegation was made by their CEO who was defending himself against insider trading charges.
As far as Verizon goes, I found this little gem from the Denver Post on Cryptography , “In response to questions from the committee, Verizon said that since 2005 it has provided customer information to federal authorities in hundreds of emergency cases without court orders. The company said the information it has provided includes call records, IP addresses and credit card and bank account numbers”. It’s possible the gov. retroactively went and got the warrants (as it is allowed to do), but the document doesn’t say if that happened.
Jon- From my point of view what Obama did was politically expedient, but thoroughly disappointing. What is even more disappointing is that he was put into that position by his fellow Democrats, when there was no reason whatsoever for them to do so. Even though FISA matters a lot to me personally my support for Obama won’t change, the stakes are too big this cycle.The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American public won’t realize how much it matters to them; it is simply off their radar. Still, I feel like the arguments you are making reflect talking points, rather than a thorough reflection on the matter. The people who care about this issue are going to be fairly knowledgeable so don’t insult their intelligence by throwing up strawmen and making glib rationalizations. Most Americans are grown up enough to realize in order to get where you want you sometimes have to make imperfect choices.
Cory- There was also a story about Qwest refusing to participate in illegal wiretapping, although that allegation was made by their CEO who was defending himself against insider trading charges.
As far as Verizon goes, I found this little gem from the Denver Post on Cryptography , “In response to questions from the committee, Verizon said that since 2005 it has provided customer information to federal authorities in hundreds of emergency cases without court orders. The company said the information it has provided includes call records, IP addresses and credit card and bank account numbers”. It’s possible the gov. retroactively went and got the warrants (as it is allowed to do), but the document doesn’t say if that happened.
Jon- From my point of view what Obama did was politically expedient, but thoroughly disappointing. What is even more disappointing is that he was put into that position by his fellow Democrats, when there was no reason whatsoever for them to do so. Even though FISA matters a lot to me personally my support for Obama won’t change, the stakes are too big this cycle.The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American public won’t realize how much it matters to them; it is simply off their radar. Still, I feel like the arguments you are making reflect talking points, rather than a thorough reflection on the matter. The people who care about this issue are going to be fairly knowledgeable so don’t insult their intelligence by throwing up strawmen and making glib rationalizations. Most Americans are grown up enough to realize in order to get where you want you sometimes have to make imperfect choices.
some of you are missing the alternate choice obama could have made.
instead of caving in just to show he’s “touch on terror”; he should have taken the alternate view of saying “I’m STRONG on freedom and the bill of rights”
that could have been an EASY win. the war-on-terror fans have an argument but the rest of us sane folks have just as valid reasons for NOT caving in, and if they only said they were ‘big on human freedom’ they would have won a lot of browie points with the disgruntled voting public.
obama caved in and took the ‘safe’ way out. he lost my vote. I’m staying home in november, since there is NO valid choice to make, now.
some of you are missing the alternate choice obama could have made.
instead of caving in just to show he’s “touch on terror”; he should have taken the alternate view of saying “I’m STRONG on freedom and the bill of rights”
that could have been an EASY win. the war-on-terror fans have an argument but the rest of us sane folks have just as valid reasons for NOT caving in, and if they only said they were ‘big on human freedom’ they would have won a lot of browie points with the disgruntled voting public.
obama caved in and took the ‘safe’ way out. he lost my vote. I’m staying home in november, since there is NO valid choice to make, now.
If I for a minute thought that the American electorate had thought through the issues of wiretapping and privacy as seriously as this community had–then I might agree with the collective scream on this comment string.
Steve Schmidt (the Karl Rove trained hatchet man who just took overr the McCain campaign) was crying in his beer last night because Obama did not take the FISA bait. Schmidt had the “Obama Soft on Terrorists” ad all ready. Bush would have gottent his bill passes by 68 votes instead of 69, and Obama would have spent the next four months explaining why we shouldn’t be listening to Osama Bin Laden’s phone calls.
Please, get real.I can assure you that an Obama Justice department will protect your privacy a lot better than Bush did.
As to my snarky reprise of Scott McNealey’s quote “You have no privacy, get over it”. I’m just trying to be a realist. Google is about to turn over every record of your You Tube history to Viacom. You many recoil at this fact, but its a fact.
As Cory knows, I ma more than ready to have a national conversation about privacy. I have advocated “opt-in” programs on all sorts of on-line data retention questions.
Finally, as to Alex suggestion that the left would go to Nader, I’m hoping that was some sort of joke. Its that kind of self destructive righteousness from 2000 that got us in the dark place we are in now. Get serious.
If I for a minute thought that the American electorate had thought through the issues of wiretapping and privacy as seriously as this community had–then I might agree with the collective scream on this comment string.
Steve Schmidt (the Karl Rove trained hatchet man who just took overr the McCain campaign) was crying in his beer last night because Obama did not take the FISA bait. Schmidt had the “Obama Soft on Terrorists” ad all ready. Bush would have gottent his bill passes by 68 votes instead of 69, and Obama would have spent the next four months explaining why we shouldn’t be listening to Osama Bin Laden’s phone calls.
Please, get real.I can assure you that an Obama Justice department will protect your privacy a lot better than Bush did.
As to my snarky reprise of Scott McNealey’s quote “You have no privacy, get over it”. I’m just trying to be a realist. Google is about to turn over every record of your You Tube history to Viacom. You many recoil at this fact, but its a fact.
As Cory knows, I ma more than ready to have a national conversation about privacy. I have advocated “opt-in” programs on all sorts of on-line data retention questions.
Finally, as to Alex suggestion that the left would go to Nader, I’m hoping that was some sort of joke. Its that kind of self destructive righteousness from 2000 that got us in the dark place we are in now. Get serious.
These are some tough calls. I think, on the FISA and corporate immunity, we should concede the issue to Cory Doctorow. This is something he has been pursuing and writing about for years. On the faith issue, I don’t think many people will have a problem with involving religious folk in addressing the issues facing the nation. But to expressly offer federal funds to religious organizations, because they are religious, is a clear violation of what many of us see as a church and state issue. Should Obama offer federal money to the Sons of the Confederacy for outreach efforts? How about Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth? I suppose there are many non-profit organizations that would like to get hold of some federal bucks for their own purposes. And I don’t think for one minute that all religious organizations are going to forgo their own proselytizing efforts while doing the Government’s work. My view is not anti-religion, it’s pro-Constitution.
All this being said, I think Obama is still far and away our best bet, but some of the gloss from the primary campaign has worn away. I could not imagine voting for another Bush term or a single McSame term, but I’m not quite as excited by Obama as I once was.
These are some tough calls. I think, on the FISA and corporate immunity, we should concede the issue to Cory Doctorow. This is something he has been pursuing and writing about for years. On the faith issue, I don’t think many people will have a problem with involving religious folk in addressing the issues facing the nation. But to expressly offer federal funds to religious organizations, because they are religious, is a clear violation of what many of us see as a church and state issue. Should Obama offer federal money to the Sons of the Confederacy for outreach efforts? How about Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth? I suppose there are many non-profit organizations that would like to get hold of some federal bucks for their own purposes. And I don’t think for one minute that all religious organizations are going to forgo their own proselytizing efforts while doing the Government’s work. My view is not anti-religion, it’s pro-Constitution.
All this being said, I think Obama is still far and away our best bet, but some of the gloss from the primary campaign has worn away. I could not imagine voting for another Bush term or a single McSame term, but I’m not quite as excited by Obama as I once was.
“As to my snarky reprise of Scott McNealey’s quote ‘You have no privacy, get over it’. I’m just trying to be a realist. Google is about to turn over every record of your You Tube history to Viacom. You many recoil at this fact, but its a fact.”
Google has been ordered by a court of law to turn over its records. That order is subject to appeal. It is visible. It is in accord with the rule of law.
The NSA illegally, secretly engaged in warrantless wiretapping against every American citizen, at the behest of the president, out of the confines of the rule of law, with no ability for any of us to discover the extent of the wiretapping, the way the data was handled, etc.
The situations aren’t parallel. Companies that collect your information legally aren’t the same thing as presidentially ordered bulk surveillance. Companies that are ordered by courts to turn over their records aren’t the same as secret, illegal surveillance by governments.
These things may be bad. They may be regrettable. They are not in the same universe as warrantless surveillance, with or without Congressional oversight.
If Obama needs to sign up to betray the Constitution to keep from being wrongfooted by right-wing demagogues, then that’s what he needs to do. I think that this is a pretty terminal solution to the problem — destroying liberty to save it — but I think we can have a legitimate debate about the tactical value of selling out his oath to uphold the constitution.
But Jon, you do violence to the truth and the fundamental principles of American liberty when you try to equivocate bulk government surveillance with bad practices from the private sector. In the service of trying to salvage Obama’s reputation, you undermine all our ability to think critically and clearly about a grave and imminent threat to the idea of liberty itself — because all freedom springs from the freedom to be left alone, to think in private, to communicate without surveillance.
“As to my snarky reprise of Scott McNealey’s quote ‘You have no privacy, get over it’. I’m just trying to be a realist. Google is about to turn over every record of your You Tube history to Viacom. You many recoil at this fact, but its a fact.”
Google has been ordered by a court of law to turn over its records. That order is subject to appeal. It is visible. It is in accord with the rule of law.
The NSA illegally, secretly engaged in warrantless wiretapping against every American citizen, at the behest of the president, out of the confines of the rule of law, with no ability for any of us to discover the extent of the wiretapping, the way the data was handled, etc.
The situations aren’t parallel. Companies that collect your information legally aren’t the same thing as presidentially ordered bulk surveillance. Companies that are ordered by courts to turn over their records aren’t the same as secret, illegal surveillance by governments.
These things may be bad. They may be regrettable. They are not in the same universe as warrantless surveillance, with or without Congressional oversight.
If Obama needs to sign up to betray the Constitution to keep from being wrongfooted by right-wing demagogues, then that’s what he needs to do. I think that this is a pretty terminal solution to the problem — destroying liberty to save it — but I think we can have a legitimate debate about the tactical value of selling out his oath to uphold the constitution.
But Jon, you do violence to the truth and the fundamental principles of American liberty when you try to equivocate bulk government surveillance with bad practices from the private sector. In the service of trying to salvage Obama’s reputation, you undermine all our ability to think critically and clearly about a grave and imminent threat to the idea of liberty itself — because all freedom springs from the freedom to be left alone, to think in private, to communicate without surveillance.
Cory- I’m not sure the line between government spying and private data collection is as clear as you paint it. Part of Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness” project (which is still probably going on under another name) was the government purchase of all the big consumer databases like Acxiom. If all of this is pointing towards some big data mining operation run by a splitter at every ISP’s entry point, then we need to have a larger conversation about what kind of surveillance is acceptable.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
BTW- I fixed the link on the Vint Cerf “net neutrality, Internet as Highway system” comment. I’m surprised nobody commented about that?
Cory- I’m not sure the line between government spying and private data collection is as clear as you paint it. Part of Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness” project (which is still probably going on under another name) was the government purchase of all the big consumer databases like Acxiom. If all of this is pointing towards some big data mining operation run by a splitter at every ISP’s entry point, then we need to have a larger conversation about what kind of surveillance is acceptable.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
BTW- I fixed the link on the Vint Cerf “net neutrality, Internet as Highway system” comment. I’m surprised nobody commented about that?
Hoping we don’t have to swallow Sam Nunn or Tom Daschele as Obama’s VP, as a paen to the middle.
If it’s Katherine Sibelius — or anyone who has some slightly progressive credentials — I’ll feel a bit more reassured.
Hoping we don’t have to swallow Sam Nunn or Tom Daschele as Obama’s VP, as a paen to the middle.
If it’s Katherine Sibelius — or anyone who has some slightly progressive credentials — I’ll feel a bit more reassured.
The growth of private data-collection agencies — especially credit-reporting bureaux — was spurred by post-Watergate limits on FBI surveillance, and these companies often furnish details about our commercial habits to the FBI.
But as much as this is an end-run around the legal limits on the FBI, it is still within the confines of the law. We could amend the law. We can use FOIA to determine how it’s being used. We can use privacy regulations and personal choices to limit the material turned over to credit reporting agencies.
The forward-looking decision to allow the NSA to intercept *every single electronic communication* in the nation, without any particularized suspicion is well beyond the idea that the credit bureaux will hand over some information about our purchasing habits to their customers, who include the FBI.
Retrospectively, the administration ordered these companies to break the law — they broke the law, remember this, they broke the law — and the legislative branch has just hamstrung the judicial branch’s solemn duty to investigate, make public, and punish illegal activities. The extent of the lawbreaking is invisible to us. Without the lawsuits, we will never know what they collected, how it was handled, who saw it, where it resides now.
Obama voted against the right of the American people to demand that their leaders be held to account for lawbreaking. From the Magna Carta forward, this right is fundamental. It is the difference between being led and being ruled.
A policeman can’t order you to shoot someone. The mayor can’t order you to burn down someone’s house. The president can’t order you to violate the fourth amendment rights of the entire nation.
The growth of private data-collection agencies — especially credit-reporting bureaux — was spurred by post-Watergate limits on FBI surveillance, and these companies often furnish details about our commercial habits to the FBI.
But as much as this is an end-run around the legal limits on the FBI, it is still within the confines of the law. We could amend the law. We can use FOIA to determine how it’s being used. We can use privacy regulations and personal choices to limit the material turned over to credit reporting agencies.
The forward-looking decision to allow the NSA to intercept *every single electronic communication* in the nation, without any particularized suspicion is well beyond the idea that the credit bureaux will hand over some information about our purchasing habits to their customers, who include the FBI.
Retrospectively, the administration ordered these companies to break the law — they broke the law, remember this, they broke the law — and the legislative branch has just hamstrung the judicial branch’s solemn duty to investigate, make public, and punish illegal activities. The extent of the lawbreaking is invisible to us. Without the lawsuits, we will never know what they collected, how it was handled, who saw it, where it resides now.
Obama voted against the right of the American people to demand that their leaders be held to account for lawbreaking. From the Magna Carta forward, this right is fundamental. It is the difference between being led and being ruled.
A policeman can’t order you to shoot someone. The mayor can’t order you to burn down someone’s house. The president can’t order you to violate the fourth amendment rights of the entire nation.
Jon,
You may want to reconsider your position on this one. Here’s what Obama had to say on his website, in response to the significant protest that erupted there in response to his stance on FISA.
“The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.”
He pitched this as a positive development – as though the Dems were (finally) asserting some real oversight. Talk about an ‘imperfect choice’.
After all, that ‘exclusivity provision’ is nothing new. In fact, it it the very essence of the 1978 law. For Obama to try selling the original (and severely violated) intent as a hard-won concession goes beyond the pale – especially when he’s already made categorical statements about his opposition to immunity.
Add me to the list of people who have lost substantial respect for the guy. My sense is that we have a chance – right now – to fix the damage the Bush administration has done. However, if the Democrats take the White House, and decide they actually quite like all the room to maneuver that Cheney has added (‘don’t worry – we’ll only use these powers for good’) then the concrete will have set.
Concrete shoes, I should say. For some reason, what comes to mind is the image of a six foot Statue of Liberty getting pitched into the Gowanus Canal by some shady, grubby characters driving a beat-up Town Car.
I realize that I’m being a bit dramatic, but honestly, it’s not everyday that you see a Republic unwind. Not like this.
7/09.
Jon,
You may want to reconsider your position on this one. Here’s what Obama had to say on his website, in response to the significant protest that erupted there in response to his stance on FISA.
“The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.”
He pitched this as a positive development – as though the Dems were (finally) asserting some real oversight. Talk about an ‘imperfect choice’.
After all, that ‘exclusivity provision’ is nothing new. In fact, it it the very essence of the 1978 law. For Obama to try selling the original (and severely violated) intent as a hard-won concession goes beyond the pale – especially when he’s already made categorical statements about his opposition to immunity.
Add me to the list of people who have lost substantial respect for the guy. My sense is that we have a chance – right now – to fix the damage the Bush administration has done. However, if the Democrats take the White House, and decide they actually quite like all the room to maneuver that Cheney has added (‘don’t worry – we’ll only use these powers for good’) then the concrete will have set.
Concrete shoes, I should say. For some reason, what comes to mind is the image of a six foot Statue of Liberty getting pitched into the Gowanus Canal by some shady, grubby characters driving a beat-up Town Car.
I realize that I’m being a bit dramatic, but honestly, it’s not everyday that you see a Republic unwind. Not like this.
7/09.
Oh, hey, there’s an emoticon. That was not intentional, but that little wink turns out to be rather appropriate.
I remain disgusted.
Oh, hey, there’s an emoticon. That was not intentional, but that little wink turns out to be rather appropriate.
I remain disgusted.
I’ve just lost a little bit of the great respect I’ve had for your writing ever since I started reading your blog.
While it is more than understandable that Obama doesn’t want to start his term with a “Truth and Reconciliation committee”, to go as far as saying we don’t have any privacy ANYWAY, just blows my mind.
How blind to the importance of this issue can you be in support of your candidate, Jon?
How partisan can you be?
Yes, we don’t have privacy anyway. But that’s no reason to accept it. This is only going to get worse in the future.
The copious amount of information contained within our emails is to credit card records what a nuclear missile is to an M-16.
Also, for the first time in history, we, the people actually know about this threat to our privacy.
For the first time in history, we actually have the tools to fight it. For the first time in history we can acquire evidence of this invasion of privacy and do something about it. Blogs give us the voice to raise these concerns and speak out against them.
For the first time in history, a presidential candidate has banked on our hope that government can change and become more democratic in the true sense of the word.
This bill is a mighty blow to the 4th amendment and your supported candidate, Barack Obama voted for it.
Sure he’s also banking on the backlash from the left to gain more political support from the right.
But, as you yourself admit, he already has all the support he needs.
He could have used this issue to prove that he’s a different kind of candidate.
Instead he chose to keep ill-gained power within the Oval Office. A power that will only grow in the coming years and decades, as data-mining operations become more complex, comprehensive and as more and more data becomes available.
A little bit of hope just died, to the cheers of Jon Taplin…
I’ve just lost a little bit of the great respect I’ve had for your writing ever since I started reading your blog.
While it is more than understandable that Obama doesn’t want to start his term with a “Truth and Reconciliation committee”, to go as far as saying we don’t have any privacy ANYWAY, just blows my mind.
How blind to the importance of this issue can you be in support of your candidate, Jon?
How partisan can you be?
Yes, we don’t have privacy anyway. But that’s no reason to accept it. This is only going to get worse in the future.
The copious amount of information contained within our emails is to credit card records what a nuclear missile is to an M-16.
Also, for the first time in history, we, the people actually know about this threat to our privacy.
For the first time in history, we actually have the tools to fight it. For the first time in history we can acquire evidence of this invasion of privacy and do something about it. Blogs give us the voice to raise these concerns and speak out against them.
For the first time in history, a presidential candidate has banked on our hope that government can change and become more democratic in the true sense of the word.
This bill is a mighty blow to the 4th amendment and your supported candidate, Barack Obama voted for it.
Sure he’s also banking on the backlash from the left to gain more political support from the right.
But, as you yourself admit, he already has all the support he needs.
He could have used this issue to prove that he’s a different kind of candidate.
Instead he chose to keep ill-gained power within the Oval Office. A power that will only grow in the coming years and decades, as data-mining operations become more complex, comprehensive and as more and more data becomes available.
A little bit of hope just died, to the cheers of Jon Taplin…
I agree with the many here who think Obama’s vote on Fisa is extrememly disappointing. Either you stand for something or you don’t, and in this vote, he clearly caved for his own political purposes. Becoming the problem is never the solution, and making a habit of it only makes firm the condition.
I agree with the many here who think Obama’s vote on Fisa is extrememly disappointing. Either you stand for something or you don’t, and in this vote, he clearly caved for his own political purposes. Becoming the problem is never the solution, and making a habit of it only makes firm the condition.
I’m mad about FISA, but I’m cutting Obama some slack. He knew we’d lost on FISA, sweet talked us die-hards about how we’d made a difference (“…your passion is an important reason why this bill is better…” HA!), and turned the lemons into political lemonade by using us as Sister Souljah’s. Ouch! But I still want him to beat McCain soundly for the good of our country. We have a ton of other issues to work on and Obama is still far and away the better choice.
Now that the Democrats in Congress have cut-and-run from the right-wing fear-mongers, here’s the next battle they are positioning themselves to lose.
It never pays to appease aggressors — especially the one still camped out in the White House.
I’m mad about FISA, but I’m cutting Obama some slack. He knew we’d lost on FISA, sweet talked us die-hards about how we’d made a difference (“…your passion is an important reason why this bill is better…” HA!), and turned the lemons into political lemonade by using us as Sister Souljah’s. Ouch! But I still want him to beat McCain soundly for the good of our country. We have a ton of other issues to work on and Obama is still far and away the better choice.
Now that the Democrats in Congress have cut-and-run from the right-wing fear-mongers, here’s the next battle they are positioning themselves to lose.
It never pays to appease aggressors — especially the one still camped out in the White House.
STS,
Obama made serious hay from his principled (and, at the time, rather lonely) opposition to the Iraq invasion. You could even say that this was the signature position that got him into the running as a serious contender, demonstrating admirable independence, foresight and principle.
So why the go-along-to-get-along attitude now? It’s not as if he was casting a tie-breaking vote. All Obama had to loose was credibility. And it’s not like McCain could have taken him to task for this vote – not when he himself was absent.
I just don’t get it.
STS,
Obama made serious hay from his principled (and, at the time, rather lonely) opposition to the Iraq invasion. You could even say that this was the signature position that got him into the running as a serious contender, demonstrating admirable independence, foresight and principle.
So why the go-along-to-get-along attitude now? It’s not as if he was casting a tie-breaking vote. All Obama had to loose was credibility. And it’s not like McCain could have taken him to task for this vote – not when he himself was absent.
I just don’t get it.
Oh, and Hillary just nailed it. This is from her comments on her ‘no’ vote. (full text here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html)
“What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions…I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.”
Sigh.
Hopefully she’s more persuasive when it comes to the torture question that STS just raised. Or perhaps the administration will be given another get out of jail free card there as well.
Oh, and Hillary just nailed it. This is from her comments on her ‘no’ vote. (full text here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html)
“What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions…I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.”
Sigh.
Hopefully she’s more persuasive when it comes to the torture question that STS just raised. Or perhaps the administration will be given another get out of jail free card there as well.
One more thing:
If you think Democrats who are on the Intelligence Committee can do so without any conflicts of interest, consider this, which is a listing of PAC contributions to its head, Jay Rockefeller.
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00001685&cycle=2008
You’ll notice that, in 2004, contributions from telcoms don’t even register. In 2006, AT&T appears near the top of the list. By 2008, their contribution nearly doubled, and has been exceeded by one from Verizon (also absent in 2004, but making a strong showing in 2006.)
Here are the salient details, in graphic form:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
And here’s more on his role as a champion for Bush & Cheney with regard to telcom immunity:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/24/rockefeller/
Okay, I’m done.
One more thing:
If you think Democrats who are on the Intelligence Committee can do so without any conflicts of interest, consider this, which is a listing of PAC contributions to its head, Jay Rockefeller.
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00001685&cycle=2008
You’ll notice that, in 2004, contributions from telcoms don’t even register. In 2006, AT&T appears near the top of the list. By 2008, their contribution nearly doubled, and has been exceeded by one from Verizon (also absent in 2004, but making a strong showing in 2006.)
Here are the salient details, in graphic form:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
And here’s more on his role as a champion for Bush & Cheney with regard to telcom immunity:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/24/rockefeller/
Okay, I’m done.
Alex, you and I are “Sister Souljah’s”. He couldn’t please us with a victory, so he took the opportunity to do a little “distancing”. He’s way COOLER than us, so all those people who think we’re scary understand that they too can trust Obama. He’s not some hot headed zealot like us
It isn’t clear to me that this “playing to Peoria” will actually win him more votes than it loses, but he’s way smarter about politics than I’ll ever be, so for now I’ll hope he’s right.
At any rate there were already 68 votes for this crappy “compromise” (read: capitulation) so Obama could only choose between taking more heat and just “brushing it off” (cue tape of hip gesture with hand at shoulder).
Alex, you and I are “Sister Souljah’s”. He couldn’t please us with a victory, so he took the opportunity to do a little “distancing”. He’s way COOLER than us, so all those people who think we’re scary understand that they too can trust Obama. He’s not some hot headed zealot like us
It isn’t clear to me that this “playing to Peoria” will actually win him more votes than it loses, but he’s way smarter about politics than I’ll ever be, so for now I’ll hope he’s right.
At any rate there were already 68 votes for this crappy “compromise” (read: capitulation) so Obama could only choose between taking more heat and just “brushing it off” (cue tape of hip gesture with hand at shoulder).
From Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
From Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
Still no answer on an actual alternative suggested.
I do think an issue is raised by this:
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to create procedures and regulations related to the authorization of foreign intelligence gathering and to review and evaluate recent activities related to intelligence gathering.
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 3773: To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Highlights:
-Requires that the guidelines adopted by the Attorney General in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence related to compliance with the limitations on intelligence targeting authorizations shall be submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as well as the Congressional intelligence and judiciary committees (Sec. 101).
-Allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to direct electronic communication service providers to provide the government with assistance in acquiring intelligence as authorized in accordance with the provisions of this bill and releases electronic communication service providers from any liability resulting from compliance with a such a directive (Sec. 101).
-Mandates that the Attorney General provide semiannual reports to the Congressional intelligence and judiciary committees regarding the implementation of provisions of this bill (Sec. 101).
-Specifies that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have authority to review and approve applications and enter orders to target “United States persons” who are reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States for intelligence acquisition (Sec. 101).
-Requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the National Director of Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and other elements of the intelligence community to review the intelligence activities involving communications that were authorized at any time between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007 (Sec. 110).
-Mandates that the Attorney General provide any relevant request or directive to the court in any civil case alleging that a person aided an element of the intelligence community as a result of such a directive or request during the time period from September 11, 2001, to January 17, 2007 (Sec. 201).
-Establishes the Commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities within the legislative branch, to be composed of five members appointed jointly by the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and four members appointed jointly by the Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and which will be charged with evaluating the legal justification for activities related to intelligence collection that occurred between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007 (Sec. 301).
-Note: Under United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1801) a “United States person” is defined as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.”
——
Reading thru this, doesn’t it make spying at home on illegal aliens legal?
Still no answer on an actual alternative suggested.
I do think an issue is raised by this:
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to create procedures and regulations related to the authorization of foreign intelligence gathering and to review and evaluate recent activities related to intelligence gathering.
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 3773: To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Highlights:
-Requires that the guidelines adopted by the Attorney General in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence related to compliance with the limitations on intelligence targeting authorizations shall be submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as well as the Congressional intelligence and judiciary committees (Sec. 101).
-Allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to direct electronic communication service providers to provide the government with assistance in acquiring intelligence as authorized in accordance with the provisions of this bill and releases electronic communication service providers from any liability resulting from compliance with a such a directive (Sec. 101).
-Mandates that the Attorney General provide semiannual reports to the Congressional intelligence and judiciary committees regarding the implementation of provisions of this bill (Sec. 101).
-Specifies that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have authority to review and approve applications and enter orders to target “United States persons” who are reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States for intelligence acquisition (Sec. 101).
-Requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the National Director of Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and other elements of the intelligence community to review the intelligence activities involving communications that were authorized at any time between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007 (Sec. 110).
-Mandates that the Attorney General provide any relevant request or directive to the court in any civil case alleging that a person aided an element of the intelligence community as a result of such a directive or request during the time period from September 11, 2001, to January 17, 2007 (Sec. 201).
-Establishes the Commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities within the legislative branch, to be composed of five members appointed jointly by the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and four members appointed jointly by the Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and which will be charged with evaluating the legal justification for activities related to intelligence collection that occurred between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007 (Sec. 301).
-Note: Under United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1801) a “United States person” is defined as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.”
——
Reading thru this, doesn’t it make spying at home on illegal aliens legal?
Jonathan
I’m going to vote for Obama, and I hope all the folks on this list, especially including Cory, do as well. I’m old enough to have worked for Bob Kennedy’s campaign in 1968, which I think was before Cory’s memories begin.
But I’m writing because I’m not comfortable with your comments on FISA. Of course the right thing for Obama to do would have been to vote against it, an opinion informed by some knowledge of the extent of the surveillance that Obama either knows or could easily find out.
But both your comments and the criticisms I believe miss an important point. Obama is a very tough and practical politician, who like almost all successful politicians makes many compromises. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize him for this as Cory does for good reason. I would disagree with a decision by Cory not to vote for him because of it. You and I are both old enough to remember the hard question of whether to vote for war supporter Hubert Humphrey as being not as bad as Richard Nixon. Many of our friends sat that out, others thought not voting for Humphrey was a mistaken “after Hitler, us” decision. Most of those that didn’t vote later regretted the decision, but it’s easy to understand boycotting a man who abandoned his conscience to support a war he knew was wrong and was nominated as blood was flowing on the streets of Chicago.
Voting for Obama is not a decision so hard, not least because he stood against the war from the beginning. But I’d much rather do that with my eyes open, accepting but not defending the compromises he makes. I think instead of explaining why it wasn’t such a bad decision on the merits it would be better to be open and say he did the wrong thing on this, as he has on some other issues. He’s a good man, I think, but not a saint to idolize. I know a handful of other compromises he’s made. One of his key supporters in our field is a well paid telco advocate working very effectively to make the next Intertainer or other competition to the telcos much harder. Rolling Stone reports that that a $85,000 contribution from Obama’s campaign to Tom Daschele helped him win a crucial early supporter. Some of the folks he has worked with in Illinois are so close to proven corruption I’d avoid them.
All of which is insignificant compared to the differences of substance between Obama and McCain. Yet I think we are far less likely to be disappointed and more likely to be effective if we accept his flaws as most of us would occasionally need to be forgiven.
I worked as a volunteer for Bob Kennedy despite knowing even then many of his flaws. My connection to the Kennedy campaign (Dick Morris) proved later to be thoroughly corrupt, taking money from anyone to help them get elected, including some of the most despicable characters in recent U.S. politics. From what I now know about Kennedy, I believe that like his brother Jack he would have disappointed me heavily if elected, although on balance he was a good choice.
I think Obama, when elected, will prove probably the finest President of my lifetime. I just think it’s better to see him whole, including recognizing that most of our crucial issues won’t be solved by this election.
I fear I sound muddled, but hope I”ve made a useful point.
Dave Burstein
p.s. I just saw The Last Waltz. It really was a fine piece of work.
Jonathan
I’m going to vote for Obama, and I hope all the folks on this list, especially including Cory, do as well. I’m old enough to have worked for Bob Kennedy’s campaign in 1968, which I think was before Cory’s memories begin.
But I’m writing because I’m not comfortable with your comments on FISA. Of course the right thing for Obama to do would have been to vote against it, an opinion informed by some knowledge of the extent of the surveillance that Obama either knows or could easily find out.
But both your comments and the criticisms I believe miss an important point. Obama is a very tough and practical politician, who like almost all successful politicians makes many compromises. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize him for this as Cory does for good reason. I would disagree with a decision by Cory not to vote for him because of it. You and I are both old enough to remember the hard question of whether to vote for war supporter Hubert Humphrey as being not as bad as Richard Nixon. Many of our friends sat that out, others thought not voting for Humphrey was a mistaken “after Hitler, us” decision. Most of those that didn’t vote later regretted the decision, but it’s easy to understand boycotting a man who abandoned his conscience to support a war he knew was wrong and was nominated as blood was flowing on the streets of Chicago.
Voting for Obama is not a decision so hard, not least because he stood against the war from the beginning. But I’d much rather do that with my eyes open, accepting but not defending the compromises he makes. I think instead of explaining why it wasn’t such a bad decision on the merits it would be better to be open and say he did the wrong thing on this, as he has on some other issues. He’s a good man, I think, but not a saint to idolize. I know a handful of other compromises he’s made. One of his key supporters in our field is a well paid telco advocate working very effectively to make the next Intertainer or other competition to the telcos much harder. Rolling Stone reports that that a $85,000 contribution from Obama’s campaign to Tom Daschele helped him win a crucial early supporter. Some of the folks he has worked with in Illinois are so close to proven corruption I’d avoid them.
All of which is insignificant compared to the differences of substance between Obama and McCain. Yet I think we are far less likely to be disappointed and more likely to be effective if we accept his flaws as most of us would occasionally need to be forgiven.
I worked as a volunteer for Bob Kennedy despite knowing even then many of his flaws. My connection to the Kennedy campaign (Dick Morris) proved later to be thoroughly corrupt, taking money from anyone to help them get elected, including some of the most despicable characters in recent U.S. politics. From what I now know about Kennedy, I believe that like his brother Jack he would have disappointed me heavily if elected, although on balance he was a good choice.
I think Obama, when elected, will prove probably the finest President of my lifetime. I just think it’s better to see him whole, including recognizing that most of our crucial issues won’t be solved by this election.
I fear I sound muddled, but hope I”ve made a useful point.
Dave Burstein
p.s. I just saw The Last Waltz. It really was a fine piece of work.
I’m taking my lumps like a man here. I agree that our privacy is threatened in a very grave way. I would like some suggestions of what to do about. Every credit card transaction, every grocery item, every on line search are stored in someone’s database. I’m not sure I know of what to do about this. I feel like we are citizens of Huxley’s “Brave New World”, being passively amused into submission.
As Dave Burstein, who has fought more battles with the telcos than any of us here points out, politics, even progressive politics, is the art of compromise. When guys like Tom Franks write books like “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, the underlying theme is that the Republican’s have used fear to get the middle and lower classes to vote against their economic interest. Now here comes a candidate who is not using fear, but rather hope to organize the underrepresented majorityto vote for their economic interest.
As far as I’m concerned the last 8 years have been the biggest heist of the public treasury and well being, right into the pockets of the top 1% of taxpayers and the cronies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld at Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial complex.
We can wail all we want about immunity for AT&T, but unless we are willing to look at the larger issue of who is winning and who is losing by a continuation of the Bush McCain political deal, then we are just going to surrender to the current Plutocracy. John McCain’s immediate response to the Iranian Missle test yesterday is “we’ve got to get started building that $trillion missle shield.
So who is going to gain by that ploy?
I suggest, we all agree to disagree over Obama’s FISA vote. It’s not the vote I wish he could have made, but I know how the “what’s the matter with Kansas” fear trick has worked. And that FISA vote would be Item number one in the Obama (the secret Muslim) doesn’t want us to tap Osama’s phone ad.
I’m taking my lumps like a man here. I agree that our privacy is threatened in a very grave way. I would like some suggestions of what to do about. Every credit card transaction, every grocery item, every on line search are stored in someone’s database. I’m not sure I know of what to do about this. I feel like we are citizens of Huxley’s “Brave New World”, being passively amused into submission.
As Dave Burstein, who has fought more battles with the telcos than any of us here points out, politics, even progressive politics, is the art of compromise. When guys like Tom Franks write books like “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, the underlying theme is that the Republican’s have used fear to get the middle and lower classes to vote against their economic interest. Now here comes a candidate who is not using fear, but rather hope to organize the underrepresented majorityto vote for their economic interest.
As far as I’m concerned the last 8 years have been the biggest heist of the public treasury and well being, right into the pockets of the top 1% of taxpayers and the cronies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld at Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial complex.
We can wail all we want about immunity for AT&T, but unless we are willing to look at the larger issue of who is winning and who is losing by a continuation of the Bush McCain political deal, then we are just going to surrender to the current Plutocracy. John McCain’s immediate response to the Iranian Missle test yesterday is “we’ve got to get started building that $trillion missle shield.
So who is going to gain by that ploy?
I suggest, we all agree to disagree over Obama’s FISA vote. It’s not the vote I wish he could have made, but I know how the “what’s the matter with Kansas” fear trick has worked. And that FISA vote would be Item number one in the Obama (the secret Muslim) doesn’t want us to tap Osama’s phone ad.
It just occurred to me, reading this..
“My sense is that we have a chance – right now – to fix the damage the Bush administration has done.”
…that people are spendig a great deal of time arguing about what a presidential candidate, and actual president, do.
Which is sort of implicitly confirming that it’s all about the presidents increasingly dictatorial powers when really this was an issue before the house of representatives. A vote the senate was taking and not a descision for the president.
It was their ball, in their court. And Obama, as a Senator, picked the wrong side.
Concentrating on the matter as if it’s solely an issue of which dictator gets to make decisions would appear to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
It would be nice, no matter who gets elected president, for the other elected representatives to uphold their vows.
It just occurred to me, reading this..
“My sense is that we have a chance – right now – to fix the damage the Bush administration has done.”
…that people are spendig a great deal of time arguing about what a presidential candidate, and actual president, do.
Which is sort of implicitly confirming that it’s all about the presidents increasingly dictatorial powers when really this was an issue before the house of representatives. A vote the senate was taking and not a descision for the president.
It was their ball, in their court. And Obama, as a Senator, picked the wrong side.
Concentrating on the matter as if it’s solely an issue of which dictator gets to make decisions would appear to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
It would be nice, no matter who gets elected president, for the other elected representatives to uphold their vows.
Jonathan
You ask the right question, “I’m not sure I know of what to do about this.” I’ve spent a wonderful ten years now reporting about the Internet, and along the way learned more about the politics than I wanted to. Privacy, it turns out, is an area where a large number of conservatives agree, and victories throughout the world have been common. Under a conservative government, 23 executives of Korea’s #2 broadband company have recently been indicted, including the CEO. They had broken the law by sharing hundreds of thousands of customer records with direct marketing firms. I doubt they will go to jail, but most will probably find there careers destroyed. In much of Europe, the law and custom is explicit requiring opt-in, something that in the U.S. is considered unrealistic.
One of the most surprising things I learned is that you can have more impact than you think on many of the D.C. decisions, and the effort often succeeds. I’ve been amazed to find thoughts of mine embodied in FCC regulations written by conservative Republicans. It’s discouraging to lose so many, but surprising how often the issues are decided openly with folks including conservative commissioners trying to do the right thing. I’ve also seen overt corruption and overwhelming pressure drive decisions, but surprisingly many are made in good faith.
The interesting question is how to be effective if you care about the issues. I know Jonathan originally from both working in Internet video, but I’ve seen him since working effectively on policy. He goes to Washington, talks to groups and also one on one to the decisionmakers, makes respectful, informed arguments, and I hope occasionally can see the results. I know that works, because I’ve watched even more closely the best lobbyists in the business (Verizon, AT&T, and Disney) and observed that’s a great deal of their technique as well.
How can someone like you do similar? You absolutely do not need to walk in with a $600 an hour D.C. lawyer. An FCC commissioner tells me he will more likely to pay attention if you don’t, although obviously an introduction doesn’t hurt. The most effective work takes time, courage, knowledge, and occasionally enough money to go to where the powerful come together. I can’t afford to go to Washington for every important hearing, or to Aspen every year for the influential PFF conference, but I know I have impact when I do. I know broadband well (wrote a book on it among other things) and find almost everyone in D.C. is willing to listen when I speak respectfully with knowledge. I was amazed at the people who spent generous amounts of time with me in sincere conversation. I’m a longhaired geek with visible leftwing politics and never expected to be treated as a friend by buttoned down Republicans personally close to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. But when a powerful Republican wanted some honest advice on how to get broadband to rural North Carolina, (about which I’ve written) he called out of the blue and asked me to come down to D.C. He grew up on a dirt road, not poor but well aware of rural problems. Four years later, a friend who manages a small rural telco tells me a brief meeting in D.C. wound up becoming a 90 minute talk with the FCC Chairman, because serving rural communities is important to Kevin Martin.
What he and others at the top of the FCC tell me is that they are sick and tired of the same old lobbyists coming and repeating the same tired arguments. So if you have expertise, or are willing to study a subject well enough to have original ideas, you’ll probably be amazed at the impact you can have.
The second thing I hear in D.C. is that Congressmen are very much inclined to respond to any constituent. The first thing pros tell new Congressmen is that in two years they and their staff will meet thousands of people from their district, most of whom have local friends and relatives. That’s more than the margin of victory in many elections. Treating them well (constituent service) is crucial to re-election. Of course they will be even nicer to volunteers and contributors, but most will go out of their way to listen. It turns out that on nine out of ten important issues the typical Congressperson never hears a spontaneous word from people in their district, even if it’s being deeply fought in D.C. The only people who contact them have a financial interest, or our brought forward by the lavishly financed lobbying efforts of groups like Charlie Black’s. One person at a community meeting will usually get a Congressperson or state legislator thinking; five genuine comments will likely surprise her and get her wondering if the sentiment is deeper. Many of us know half a dozen local people who care about issues like privacy, the control of the Internet, whether you have television choice or whether our town has 50 megabit service in both directions or the 80-95% slower stuff sold by outfits like AT&T. Lobbyists on issues like that spend tens of millions every year to induce a relative handful of people to contact their representatives. They spend the because it works. A handful of people who care can have an impact. Do it live at one of the many community events politicians always hold, or at their political events, many of which are free or only modest contributions. They keep in office by remembering you.
There’s many more ways you can have influence on most issues with only a little bit of work. One of the easiest, if you can, is to give even modest money to the groups fighting for you. Many of the best, including EFF, Media Access, NYC Wireless have budgets so tight it severely holds them back. Your money will likely be well spent.
I one thing I try not to spend time on is fighting with people I generally agree with. I’ve spent 20 years at Pacifica Radio, where unnecessary fratricidal battles have cut into what often is very important work. Disagreements will always happen, but I would much rather have impact on the most important issues.
Dave Burstein
Jonathan
You ask the right question, “I’m not sure I know of what to do about this.” I’ve spent a wonderful ten years now reporting about the Internet, and along the way learned more about the politics than I wanted to. Privacy, it turns out, is an area where a large number of conservatives agree, and victories throughout the world have been common. Under a conservative government, 23 executives of Korea’s #2 broadband company have recently been indicted, including the CEO. They had broken the law by sharing hundreds of thousands of customer records with direct marketing firms. I doubt they will go to jail, but most will probably find there careers destroyed. In much of Europe, the law and custom is explicit requiring opt-in, something that in the U.S. is considered unrealistic.
One of the most surprising things I learned is that you can have more impact than you think on many of the D.C. decisions, and the effort often succeeds. I’ve been amazed to find thoughts of mine embodied in FCC regulations written by conservative Republicans. It’s discouraging to lose so many, but surprising how often the issues are decided openly with folks including conservative commissioners trying to do the right thing. I’ve also seen overt corruption and overwhelming pressure drive decisions, but surprisingly many are made in good faith.
The interesting question is how to be effective if you care about the issues. I know Jonathan originally from both working in Internet video, but I’ve seen him since working effectively on policy. He goes to Washington, talks to groups and also one on one to the decisionmakers, makes respectful, informed arguments, and I hope occasionally can see the results. I know that works, because I’ve watched even more closely the best lobbyists in the business (Verizon, AT&T, and Disney) and observed that’s a great deal of their technique as well.
How can someone like you do similar? You absolutely do not need to walk in with a $600 an hour D.C. lawyer. An FCC commissioner tells me he will more likely to pay attention if you don’t, although obviously an introduction doesn’t hurt. The most effective work takes time, courage, knowledge, and occasionally enough money to go to where the powerful come together. I can’t afford to go to Washington for every important hearing, or to Aspen every year for the influential PFF conference, but I know I have impact when I do. I know broadband well (wrote a book on it among other things) and find almost everyone in D.C. is willing to listen when I speak respectfully with knowledge. I was amazed at the people who spent generous amounts of time with me in sincere conversation. I’m a longhaired geek with visible leftwing politics and never expected to be treated as a friend by buttoned down Republicans personally close to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. But when a powerful Republican wanted some honest advice on how to get broadband to rural North Carolina, (about which I’ve written) he called out of the blue and asked me to come down to D.C. He grew up on a dirt road, not poor but well aware of rural problems. Four years later, a friend who manages a small rural telco tells me a brief meeting in D.C. wound up becoming a 90 minute talk with the FCC Chairman, because serving rural communities is important to Kevin Martin.
What he and others at the top of the FCC tell me is that they are sick and tired of the same old lobbyists coming and repeating the same tired arguments. So if you have expertise, or are willing to study a subject well enough to have original ideas, you’ll probably be amazed at the impact you can have.
The second thing I hear in D.C. is that Congressmen are very much inclined to respond to any constituent. The first thing pros tell new Congressmen is that in two years they and their staff will meet thousands of people from their district, most of whom have local friends and relatives. That’s more than the margin of victory in many elections. Treating them well (constituent service) is crucial to re-election. Of course they will be even nicer to volunteers and contributors, but most will go out of their way to listen. It turns out that on nine out of ten important issues the typical Congressperson never hears a spontaneous word from people in their district, even if it’s being deeply fought in D.C. The only people who contact them have a financial interest, or our brought forward by the lavishly financed lobbying efforts of groups like Charlie Black’s. One person at a community meeting will usually get a Congressperson or state legislator thinking; five genuine comments will likely surprise her and get her wondering if the sentiment is deeper. Many of us know half a dozen local people who care about issues like privacy, the control of the Internet, whether you have television choice or whether our town has 50 megabit service in both directions or the 80-95% slower stuff sold by outfits like AT&T. Lobbyists on issues like that spend tens of millions every year to induce a relative handful of people to contact their representatives. They spend the because it works. A handful of people who care can have an impact. Do it live at one of the many community events politicians always hold, or at their political events, many of which are free or only modest contributions. They keep in office by remembering you.
There’s many more ways you can have influence on most issues with only a little bit of work. One of the easiest, if you can, is to give even modest money to the groups fighting for you. Many of the best, including EFF, Media Access, NYC Wireless have budgets so tight it severely holds them back. Your money will likely be well spent.
I one thing I try not to spend time on is fighting with people I generally agree with. I’ve spent 20 years at Pacifica Radio, where unnecessary fratricidal battles have cut into what often is very important work. Disagreements will always happen, but I would much rather have impact on the most important issues.
Dave Burstein
Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle as far as privacy goes. As long as “Moore’s Law” stays happening, the gathering of data will become easier and easier, and that means that indeed, privacy as known in the 19th and much of the 20th Centuries and earlier is gone, gone, gone.
What do you all think of Google Earth? How about all those street shots? Does that fuck with your privacy? And that’s not even governmental… The guy who was sued by Barbara Streisand for aerial photography of her Malibu beach house? What do you think of him winning as defendant in that case? Privacy gone, gone, gone… People getting searched and busted because their electricity bill was too high? Yeah, indoor pot growers… PG&E is behind that one… A few years ago, the police were following folks home from shopping at local Santa Cruz area hydroponic supply dealers. How’s that for privacy? Crotch shots of dumb pantiless celebs in Hollywood. Privacy? Did they want it? Papparazzi? Scum or content providers?
Privacy is an illusion these days. The best protest I’ve seen is the mask wearers in London… But privacy is gone, gone, gone…unless you just drop out.
My girlfriend in Australia works as a pro computer graphics designer. She’s got a screaming Mac setup at work…and she refuses to have a computer at home or a mobile phone. She’s an inspiration to me. If you want privacy, just un-hook from the systems that are not private. And, for better or worse, that includes both the credit system and the Internet. They’re goners and you won’t stuff them back into the bottle. Pissing into the wind, it’s called, and I’ve decided that I just don’t give a rat’s ass about it all. If my Internet history has me looking at some no longer private parts, so the f… what… Look, the government just does not have the time to hassle us over dumb stuff, and I can’t see the US becoming East Germany with 30% of the people spying on the rest.
So save a bit of the outrage for battles that aren’t already over. And don’t not vote for Obama because of one issue on which you disagree. You, we, and I all have two choices this November…McCain or Obama. Don’t throw a vote away again… Don’t think that by allowing McCain in, you’ll achieve a farther left 2012 election. It won’t happen.
Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle as far as privacy goes. As long as “Moore’s Law” stays happening, the gathering of data will become easier and easier, and that means that indeed, privacy as known in the 19th and much of the 20th Centuries and earlier is gone, gone, gone.
What do you all think of Google Earth? How about all those street shots? Does that fuck with your privacy? And that’s not even governmental… The guy who was sued by Barbara Streisand for aerial photography of her Malibu beach house? What do you think of him winning as defendant in that case? Privacy gone, gone, gone… People getting searched and busted because their electricity bill was too high? Yeah, indoor pot growers… PG&E is behind that one… A few years ago, the police were following folks home from shopping at local Santa Cruz area hydroponic supply dealers. How’s that for privacy? Crotch shots of dumb pantiless celebs in Hollywood. Privacy? Did they want it? Papparazzi? Scum or content providers?
Privacy is an illusion these days. The best protest I’ve seen is the mask wearers in London… But privacy is gone, gone, gone…unless you just drop out.
My girlfriend in Australia works as a pro computer graphics designer. She’s got a screaming Mac setup at work…and she refuses to have a computer at home or a mobile phone. She’s an inspiration to me. If you want privacy, just un-hook from the systems that are not private. And, for better or worse, that includes both the credit system and the Internet. They’re goners and you won’t stuff them back into the bottle. Pissing into the wind, it’s called, and I’ve decided that I just don’t give a rat’s ass about it all. If my Internet history has me looking at some no longer private parts, so the f… what… Look, the government just does not have the time to hassle us over dumb stuff, and I can’t see the US becoming East Germany with 30% of the people spying on the rest.
So save a bit of the outrage for battles that aren’t already over. And don’t not vote for Obama because of one issue on which you disagree. You, we, and I all have two choices this November…McCain or Obama. Don’t throw a vote away again… Don’t think that by allowing McCain in, you’ll achieve a farther left 2012 election. It won’t happen.
Dave, for the record, I don’t get a vote. I’m Canadian.
Dave, for the record, I don’t get a vote. I’m Canadian.
“I can’t see the US becoming East Germany with 30% of the people spying on the rest”
Neither can I. That’s just the point. You don’t need 30% any more. You need a handful of really big servers, some sophisticated software, and a relative handful of agents who can sift through the stuff that the software kicks out as “enemy of the state.”
Running a police state has become much more economical. It’s no more logical; now we have countless people who can’t fly any more because a computer has flagged their name as an enemy of the state; but it’s a lot cheaper.
“I can’t see the US becoming East Germany with 30% of the people spying on the rest”
Neither can I. That’s just the point. You don’t need 30% any more. You need a handful of really big servers, some sophisticated software, and a relative handful of agents who can sift through the stuff that the software kicks out as “enemy of the state.”
Running a police state has become much more economical. It’s no more logical; now we have countless people who can’t fly any more because a computer has flagged their name as an enemy of the state; but it’s a lot cheaper.
Rick:
You and Jon both are attacking this strawman position: “give me privacy, or give me death!”
While I’m not indifferent to privacy rights, that isn’t really the key point (for me at least). I’m taking exception to the way Congress is accepting Nixon’s old argument (as he stated it to David Frost) that “when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
I’m not delusional about privacy in the modern world, just concerned that Congress is making it way too easy for White House tenants to define the law by fiat. Don’t worry, Mr. President, we’ll just fix the law to agree with whatever you decided to do!
Rick:
You and Jon both are attacking this strawman position: “give me privacy, or give me death!”
While I’m not indifferent to privacy rights, that isn’t really the key point (for me at least). I’m taking exception to the way Congress is accepting Nixon’s old argument (as he stated it to David Frost) that “when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
I’m not delusional about privacy in the modern world, just concerned that Congress is making it way too easy for White House tenants to define the law by fiat. Don’t worry, Mr. President, we’ll just fix the law to agree with whatever you decided to do!
We should leave Iran an honorable path of retreat. Engaging Iran in the global economy is the only approach that has merit.
Regardless of Iran’s size however, we should be careful what we assume about Iran; it has some ten million men of military age.
Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.
Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.
“On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.”
But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.
We should leave Iran an honorable path of retreat. Engaging Iran in the global economy is the only approach that has merit.
Regardless of Iran’s size however, we should be careful what we assume about Iran; it has some ten million men of military age.
Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.
Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.
“On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.”
But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.
STS- Maybe the real test of an Obama Presidency would be his willingness to walk back the Bush notions of the Imperial Executive.
Perhaps he could start by overhauling the whole NSA operation. Then move on to introducing a War Powers act with real teeth.
STS- Maybe the real test of an Obama Presidency would be his willingness to walk back the Bush notions of the Imperial Executive.
Perhaps he could start by overhauling the whole NSA operation. Then move on to introducing a War Powers act with real teeth.
“Then move on to introducing a War Powers act with real teeth.”
With all due respect, now who’s being naive? You think we should give up any hope of protecting our personal privacy, but you think that Obama will return war powers to Congress? He won’t give it up, and–this is the real point–Congress won’t accept the power and the responsibility anyway. They are much happier wearing lapel flag pins and shouting, “Support the Troops!”
The need to pass the original 1973 act was evidence that the executive had already seized extra-constitutional power in that area. The fact that two ex secretaries of state are talking about re-visiting the issue is proof that the 1973 act has been safely ignored by every president since its passage.
“Then move on to introducing a War Powers act with real teeth.”
With all due respect, now who’s being naive? You think we should give up any hope of protecting our personal privacy, but you think that Obama will return war powers to Congress? He won’t give it up, and–this is the real point–Congress won’t accept the power and the responsibility anyway. They are much happier wearing lapel flag pins and shouting, “Support the Troops!”
The need to pass the original 1973 act was evidence that the executive had already seized extra-constitutional power in that area. The fact that two ex secretaries of state are talking about re-visiting the issue is proof that the 1973 act has been safely ignored by every president since its passage.
Maybe we have to follow Baker’s advice and change the law.
Maybe we have to follow Baker’s advice and change the law.
Jon -
Aside from the other issues I have with this post (well discussed by others) you have committed another logical fallacy. You point out that Obama’s polling has increased since the FISA vote. But, as we scientists have to endlessly repeat to our students correlation does not equal causality!.
It is virtually inconceivable to me that anyone who was undecided or leaning McCain prior to the FISA vote has changed his mind and will now vote for Obama. He got nothing but bad press from this, and not just from those of us who are civil libertarians. He was perceived, correctly and across the political spectrum, as an opportunist and a flip-flopper. Hardly the stuff to persuade anyone.
Obama is doing well partly because McCain is doing so poorly, and to attribute this correlation to the FISA vote is, frankly, pretty silly.
P.S. I have a hard and fast rule: I am uninterested in contributing to campaigns of candidates who decide that I am someone they need to “triangulate” off of. It was the main reason I couldn’t bring myself to support Clinton. I don’t have to agree with everything a candidate says, but I won’t be his/her punching bag.
Jon -
Aside from the other issues I have with this post (well discussed by others) you have committed another logical fallacy. You point out that Obama’s polling has increased since the FISA vote. But, as we scientists have to endlessly repeat to our students correlation does not equal causality!.
It is virtually inconceivable to me that anyone who was undecided or leaning McCain prior to the FISA vote has changed his mind and will now vote for Obama. He got nothing but bad press from this, and not just from those of us who are civil libertarians. He was perceived, correctly and across the political spectrum, as an opportunist and a flip-flopper. Hardly the stuff to persuade anyone.
Obama is doing well partly because McCain is doing so poorly, and to attribute this correlation to the FISA vote is, frankly, pretty silly.
P.S. I have a hard and fast rule: I am uninterested in contributing to campaigns of candidates who decide that I am someone they need to “triangulate” off of. It was the main reason I couldn’t bring myself to support Clinton. I don’t have to agree with everything a candidate says, but I won’t be his/her punching bag.
Hey Jon… You get the mass transit thing I sent you? Non partisan. It starts from the premise of ‘what would make me WANT to take mass transit… Or Ride Share. Peter Marx and I have been working on this.
Flint
Hey Jon… You get the mass transit thing I sent you? Non partisan. It starts from the premise of ‘what would make me WANT to take mass transit… Or Ride Share. Peter Marx and I have been working on this.
Flint