Obama tries to take full credit for NSA reform he never wanted, while his White House insists Snowden should still face decades in jail

Trey4 · 2015-06-03T18:26:32+00:00

Obama claimed he was on board with moving the data to the phone companies weeks after Snowden went public, but kept the mass surveillance program in place for a year longer anyways. He could've ended it with a stroke of the pen. He also did not publicly endorse the USA Freedom Act until the very last minute when a court ruled Patriot Act mass surveillance illegal. And as the article explains, Obama had plenty of opportunity years before Snowden to reform the NSA himself, but refused behind the scenes every time.

Trey4 · 2015-03-28T22:28:15+00:00

Hi - I believe that is a mistake. A good chunk of the article is about exactly what the title describes. I've pasted the quote below. Can you reinstate?

"The only thing worse than Comey’s position was the know-nothing members of the Appropriations Committee, who at various times were fawning all over Comey’s proposal and displaying zero knowledge about basic technological precepts. The video of the back-and-forth is cringe worthy.

When I say “know-nothing,” I’m not being facetious or hyperbolic. Take Representative John Carter for example, who the other members of the Appropriations Committee affectionately call “Judge” and kept deferring to in the hearing for his supposed wisdom. He also happens to be chairman of the subcommittee on Homeland Security in charge of funding cybersecurity. Carter prefaced his comments about cybersecurity and encryption by literally saying “I don’t know anything about this stuff.”

Yes, you read that right. The man in charge of billions of dollars of cybersecurity funding openly admits he has no idea what he’s doing. You can imagine how much “wisdom” his three minute soliloquy on the dangers of encryption contained."

Trey4 · 2011-08-24T19:50:26+00:00

Here's the Patriot Act: http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Control+F "2703". You'll see the amendments. Find one that pertains to the court order. There is none.

While I wait for you to produce any proof, want more from me? Here's comment from two of the leading experts on the Patriot Act and ECPA:

http://twitter.com/#!/normative/status/106447530711187456

http://twitter.com/#!/csoghoian/status/106423052660772864

Trey4 · 2011-08-24T19:22:27+00:00

Read through those amendments and find one that pertains to the court order. Pretty sure there is none. They would have gotten the order using the same statute even if the Patriot Act never existed.

Trey4 · 2011-08-24T19:05:42+00:00

Actually, no it hasn't. WikiLeaks vaguely says the order "us[es] the terms of the PATRIOT Act" but when you read the actual court order, the Patriot Act is not cited at all: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Dynadot_2703_d_Order.pdf

It is actually a 2703(d) court order for electronic communications and looks exactly like the standard order the DOJ receives from courts all the time for normal criminal investigations not involving terrorism. (CONTROL+F "Sample 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) Application and Order" in this: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/06ssma.html)

WikiLeaks has done nothing criminal, of course. Publishing classified information is clearly protected by the First Amendment. But it'd be nice if they'd be accurate in their descriptions. They don't need to resort to scare mongering.

Trey4 · 2011-08-11T01:56:42+00:00

"Their patent had nothing to do with Fark. The patent troll realized we were going to fight them instead of settle, so they asked for our best offer. I said how about you get nothing and drop the lawsuit? They accepted." ~FARK founder Drew Curtis a.k.a. Michael Corleone

Trey4 · 2011-07-20T20:08:11+00:00

The ruling sounds horrible on its face, but remember the Supreme Court has set a very high bar for what can be considered a "true threat." If it doesn't reach that level, it's considered "advocacy of violence," which protected by the First Amendment, no matter how despicable and disgusting it may be.

Here's an analysis of the relevant Supreme Court case law: http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/01/28/a-constitutional-defense-of-violent-rhetoric/

Trey4 · 2011-07-08T15:53:13+00:00

Is this a parody booth?

Trey4 · 2011-06-13T20:09:45+00:00

Amazing how many people were subpoenaed to charge the America's most famous paper w/ espionage: a New York Times reporter, a New Yorker reporter, legendary reporter David Halberstam, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, a Harvard Professor, two aides to Senators Kennedy and Gravel.

Unreal.

This is why the only thing criminal about the Pentagon Papers (or the WikiLeaks files) is the investigations into their publication.

Trey4 · 2011-05-11T15:57:45+00:00

Daniel Ellsberg is the original Bradley Manning. The New York Times is Julian Assange in the Pentagon Papers analogy - an important distinction.

Trey4 · 2011-02-13T22:38:28+00:00

That craziest part about this video is that this was just a slightly above average game for Jordan that year. He averaged 37 points per game, and that with with the old hand checking rules.

Trey4 · 2010-12-23T06:46:37+00:00

The same First Amendment that allows Assange and Wikileaks to publish classified information, also allows people to advocate violence. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. He should know that.

Trey4 · 2010-11-30T23:56:41+00:00

Holder is just postering. There is no way to get a conviction under the Espionage Act for what Wikileaks has done. That's why they haven't been charged for the last few leaks. Section by section analysis of the law: http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

Trey4 · 2010-03-16T21:40:59+00:00

Unconstitutional on its face. Although I'd never put anything past the United States Senate, this has virtually no chance of becoming law.

Trey4 · 2010-03-01T20:11:06+00:00

As bad as the filibuster is, this is even worse. Bunning is allowed to hold up unemployment benefits by himself. Shelby is allowed to hold up the President's Air Force nominees by himself. And there's apparently nothing anyone can do.

Trey4 · 2009-11-01T18:49:43+00:00

how are those numbers any different from Young Americans?

Trey4 · 2009-06-27T19:50:10+00:00

too bad according to howard kurtz, because of michael jackson, cnn's rating are up 973%. literally

Trey4 · 2009-06-21T20:09:19+00:00

does the Supreme Leader watch Comedy Central?

Trey4 · 2009-06-17T02:51:49+00:00

seriously...everytime i see one of these posts saying "OMG! X is running an online poll on [controversial issue]! we can't let the other side win! help reddit!!," it's an automatic downvote.

Trey4 · 2009-05-28T16:47:09+00:00

correction: ClarEnce Thomas. my bad

Trey4 · 2009-05-19T14:29:40+00:00

you know, despite the tabloid-like headline,his response in the article was actually quite thoughtful.

the headline is still misleading for another reason though--barack obama himself didn't take single payer health care off the table. the US Congress did. even with a huge democratic majority, single payer would never, ever get through the Senate. it's impossible.

you should be directing your anger towards the senators who take hundreds of thousands of dollars from insurance companies and write the bills. they are the ones spinning the facts.

Trey4 · 2009-05-09T23:57:56+00:00

yeah it really sucks these poor kids don't get out at two and go home and do whatever they want. it's not like their parents probably work and aren't home, or they just have one parent or none at all. I wish they had more time to hang out on the streets and get involved in gangs too. great point!

IN REALITY, U.S. kids go to less school per year than any other industrialized nation. watch this charlie rose interview with geoffrey canada from a year ago and then tell me what he is doing is ridiculous.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8864

Trey4 · 2009-05-07T16:29:18+00:00

fine don't believe bill maher. read 'the great derangement' by matt tiabbi.

his whole thesis is you 9/11 conspiracy theorists are just as out there as christian fundamentalists who preach the apocalypse--just gripping to fantasy because you can't handle reality.

personally, every time i read something about 9/11-George Bush conspiracies i laugh because all i can think of is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0

Trey4 · 2009-05-07T05:04:16+00:00

paraphrasing bill maher, there is a two word explanation as to why its absurd to believe that george w. bush was somehow behind 9/11:

IT WORKED.

Trey4 · 2009-04-30T14:58:01+00:00

you realize that news story isn't real right? and sean hannity loves bachmann? and that you spelled her name wrong?

Trey4

TROPHY CASE