incredulity quotes are mine.
I'm reading a whole lot of skepticism in these posts, but honestly this sounds a whole lot better than what's been going on for that past 12+ years.
Current proposal would end the bulk collection of metadata, replacing it with the old, more traditionally read and more specifically spelled out FISA standard. That's huge.
A lot of what we've seen since the PATRIOT act has relied on the generous translation of a few murky clauses. In fact, in so many instances of what we consider executive over-stepping of constitutional/legal boundaries, you can bet your bottom dollar they get by on broad interpretation of either poorly-written or intentionally non-specific terminology. And that goes just as much for the Constitution as it does for legislation. It may seem like legislative equivocation just to change a few specific words, but in terms of application, this changes a fair amount. What I don't like is that it doesn't address the unknowns- what happens to internet metadata? E-mail interception? Website visits? I have the feeling that whatever Snowden's leak didn't address is just as nasty as what it did- and if it wasn't brought into the sunlight, I'm guessing that status quo will be preserved to our detriment. Also: I'm a bigger fan, it seems, than a lot of people here of Obama, but I really don't like his trend of fixing a problem only after he's exploited it to the full extent of his power. Crackdown on journalists? Yeah, we'll fix that as soon as I'm done cracking down on journalists. Spying directly on allied heads of state? Ditto. Bulk data collection? Yeah, that's bad, lemme fix it as soon as I've gotten a few more phone calls. All of it implies a misplaced confidence on his part in his own powers of executive judgement. I believe that he's incredibly smart, and much more morally-driven than a lot of people give him credit for, but confidence can be its own vice.
Heyyyy, you were supposed to forget about that, didn't you read the headline? They're ending bulk data collection!... ...of telephone records. Kind of.What happens to internet metadata? E-mail interception? Website visits?
means this doesn't actually buy us anything, which is the stated goal: The new type of surveillance court orders envisioned by the administration would require phone companies to swiftly provide records in a technologically compatible data format, including making available, on a continuing basis, data about any new calls placed or received after the order is received, the officials said.
They would also allow the government to swiftly seek related records for callers up to two phone calls, or “hops,” removed from the number that has come under suspicion, even if those callers are customers of other companies.
In a speech in January, President Obama said he wanted to get the N.S.A. out of the business of collecting call records in bulk while preserving the program’s abilities.
We have always been at war with Eurasia This is not even about terrorism, Law enforcement or public safety. the NSA exists to channel pork. The contractors need to get paid.
Difference, if I'm reading the article correctly, is that the information specified above would have to be obtained on a case-by-case basis via court order, which is several orders of magnitude better than the current system of just taking everybody's phone metadata without specific court authorization and holding it all indefinitely.
Depends on whether the court ever actually says 'no.' If, like the FISA court, they're just a rubber stamp that makes things look kosher then no, there's not much difference, other than giving them a few more hoops to jump through. I will not believe it is anything else until I hear Keith Alexander whining that the courts don't let him have any fun.
I wish I could remember the article that talked about this, but there was actually a report disclosing how many FISA requests the court shot down as being non-compliant. The percentage was actually really high. What you gotta keep in mind is that with a lot of FISA court rulings, the government presents their request, FISA either says "yes" or "no, this is unconstitutional and here's why," the government then goes back, tailors the original request to address the original ruling, brings it back and then FISA goes "sure." Anyhow, the gist of it was that FISA is actually pretty stringent, but they're as subject to constitutional jiujitsu as any other governmental entity. If it's technically legal, FISA ain't gonna be any more likely to shoot it down than any other court will.
WSJ article is paywall'd, but up to 2004 they only rejected 4 request (and eventually partially granted all of those), and only required modifications 200 times. Eventually, the government always gets what it wants out of them, which is to be expected because American courts are adversarial and in the FISA court the government has no adversary. Civil law countries can work that way because they (in principal, at least) don't leave their laws open to much interpretation. We do, and we depend on both sides fighting it out to get a semi-reasonable one. Of course some constitutional jujitsu will get anything through FISA on the rare occasion they reject something; they win by default.
Naw, it wasn't WSJ. Want to say either New Yorker or nytimes, I'll try and dig around for it tomorrow. This is gonna drive me crazy. The gist of it, though, doesn't really run counter to what you're saying, and what I said before. FISA either approves, rejects or specifies what's wrong with the request. I'm aware that it's non-adversarial. Argument that's been used before can be chalked up to: we're requesting surveillance of suspect. It would be pointless to request this surveillance if we allowed subject access to our request. Now. In event of FISA appeals to bulk collection: I dunno. That's a lot sketchier, and if it's allowed via current legislative phrasing, it needs to be addressed, which this new proposal does. At any rate, It's really hard to extrapolate the data when we have limited access to the content, but it'd be interesting to see what FISA was rejecting or requiring mods to. Either way, the ultimate outcome of the above legislative proposal is the same. If FISA generally approved bulk collection before, then the new modifications would expressly forbid that sort of bulk approval, yeah? Govt would have to go to FISA for each individual instance. So regardless of how they ruled prior to this, new specifications would make the kind of work-arounds you're concerned about a lot harder. I understand the skepticism, but I also recognize the necessity, however unpopular, to balance private interest with public security. I don't approve of the bulk data collection snafu that's come to light in the past year. But to reject any forward movement as insufficient and superficial seems pretty drastic.
Who has time for nuance?
Obama has a fault that I think may be common among successful black men a tendency not to rock the boat. To do everything by the book. To accept received wisdom. I think this is because they are forced to be on the defense.
Interesting... why would a successful black man not want to rock the boat? Out of some sort of gratitude to white people? Thanks for begrudgingly creating some space for me, I'll say thanks by not bothering you any more. Out of some fear? Fear that the space recently created for them will be taken away? and an edit: what's an instance of this phenomenon as demonstrated by Obama?Who has time for nuance?
Obama has a fault that I think may be common among successful black men a tendency not to rock the boat. To do everything by the book. To accept received wisdom.
Not to play the "that sounds racist" card, but... that sounds kinda racist. You really think that the President of the United States bases his policy decisions on some conditioned black fear of "rocking the boat"? I mean, you tried to temper it a bit with the whole "because they [black people] are forced to be on the defense," but still, that doesn't make it any less reductive. To boil the President's entire executive philosophy, which is actually pretty nuanced and informed by years of academic and professional experience, and tempered by the very real and well-chronicled limits of the office itself, and write it off as a fear of white backlash? That's, uh, racist.
It is a country based on white supremist ideology how could his actions not be tempered by racism?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "it is a country based on white suprimist [sic] ideology." Care to clarify? Do you mean in terms of slavery? Jim Crow? Because those parts of our history, while significant, do not equal the whole of American history or the basis of our political institution. Or do you mean the socioeconomic disparities that remain between white and non-white communities? Because those boundaries are a lot more fuzzy and complicated than your statement accounts for. Can't fairly summarize by just saying, "America is based on white supremacy." When I hear "country based on white supremacist ideology," I think, like, Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa. Do we have a ways to go here? Of course, always. But, I mean, come on. In regards to how this informs Pres. Obama's actions- I think there's a difference between suggesting that some of his decisions are tempered by the consideration of a racially-charged history (for instance, not acting "too black" in front of mainly white electoral rallies, not acting "too white" in front of black electoral rallies), and suggesting that his actions are directly "tempered by racism." One suggests political acumen in a world that's not really post-racial; the other implies some sort of weird power holding the president in its thrall. Also, there is no factual or even, to the best of my knowledge, indirect circumstantial evidence of the latter. However. Given the nuances. I can comfortably say that chalking the whole of a President's executive policy up to "he's a successful black man, ergo he doesn't want to rock the boat/does everything by the book/accepts received wisdom" comes off as hilariously patronizing and, yes, racist. And trying to paint it in pseudo-progressive terms ("our country is founded on white supremacy") doesn't really justify the caricature you're hoping to paint.
Well good thing you have no idea of what I am trying to say. But since you seem to be in love with your construct of my intentions why don't you just go with that.
For full disclosure I cribbed the Idea from Cornel West, Shelby Steele and Toni Morrison. Further reading that reinforced the view was The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison I am not willing to parse your rant and I am unsure you really desire to know what I think. But I am glad to answer thoughtfully worded questions.
Still unclear on what was so unacceptable about my request for clarification/rebuttal. I'm familiar with Cornel West and Toni Morrison, less so with Shelby Steele. Care to direct me towards specific references that address your point? The Invisible Man, while powerful, doesn't really speak to the President's executive policy. It was also written at a time when the threat to black Americans was much more immediate, pronounced and widespread. Seriously man, I'm totally cool with an exchange of ideas. I just happen to find appeals to reason more convincing than personal attacks.
Read our exchange where did I make personal attacks Jack-ass. <- hint first one on my part ;) . remember when you point a finger at another person you have 3 more pointed at yourself.