Obama defends surveillance effort as "trade-off" for security - Polidicks

[B]Source:[/B] [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130608]Link[/url] [quote]President Barack Obama on Friday staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attack. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about," Obama told reporters during a visit to California's Silicon Valley. He emphasized that the secret surveillance programs were supervised by federal judges and authorized by Congress, which had been briefed on the details. Obama's comments came after reports this week in Britain's Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post revealed that the National Security Agency and the FBI had secretly conducted surveillance of Americans' telephone and internet communications activities far beyond what had been made public. The reports triggered a broad debate about privacy rights and the proper limits of government surveillance in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. They also sent White House officials and congressional leaders scrambling to explain why the government needs to collect information on trillions of phone calls and internet communications. [B]"You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society. ... There are trade-offs involved."[/B][/quote] I'm kind of losing respect for Obama after this.

Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both? Seriously though....this is some bullshit.

Wow it's like Benjamin Franklin just got pile drived by the NSA

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;40951989]Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both?[/QUOTE]Benjamin Franklin knew what was up it's also one of my favorite quotes of all time, completely timeless and so true

He's not wrong, however when governments start saying this, the balance is usually starting to tip dangerously towards security and away from freedom.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;40951989]Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both? Seriously though....this is some bullshit.[/QUOTE] "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I was pretty safe before all this shit. You know, after this shit came out that the fucking government is spying on [I]all[/I] of us, I started wondering what other "tinfoil hat" theories could be true?

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;40951989]Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both? Seriously though....this is some bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Ben Franklin thought it up and Thomas Jefferson used it in one of his speeches, if I remember right. [i]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/i] It's one of those things that never really leaves the back of your mind when stuff like this happens. The worse part is, Obama says these trade-offs are "necessary". That's a big problem to me. I want to rely on myself for my own personal security, I don't want it to be 100% of the Feds or the local PD to be in charge, never asked for that. This is a massive assumption the President is making, and it's a pretty bad one.

In that case we should just lock everyone up and have someone from the NSA, FBI, and CIA assigned to them to stare at them for 24 hours. You know. Just in case they are terrorists. Think of the children's safety and such.

Okay guys let's repeat history all over again.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;40952070]In that case we should just lock everyone up[/QUOTE] don't worry i'm sure DHS and FEMA have the boxes, trains, camps, alien ships etc all ready for that

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40952129]I fail to see anything quite like this having had happened in the past [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] I'd even wager a project like PRISM was inevitable since the inception of the internet, hopefully there's enough outcry to lay it to rest, and it doesn't set a dangerous precedent of gov't snooping[/QUOTE] I think he means we're on a course of revolting. Once a government gets too powerful, its likely for people to start revolting. Thats the way to keep the government in check.

Beep beep, watch out, here comes the damage control van. I've never gotten the feeling from government going "oh shit, oh shit, tell them stuff to justify it quick" this strong before. :v:

[QUOTE]"We're going to have to make some choices as a society. ... There are trade-offs involved."[/QUOTE] remind me when there was a national poll about the necessity of this because I can't recall the american society making this choice

Well I can still say Fuck the USA from the USA without being tossed into prison, curse any and all of the 3000 something Gods and religions, kiss or hold hands in public without being married or tossed into a hole and stoned, and travel freely as long as I pay for the gas between all the states The NSA filtering for key words in text messages with bots is nothing. No one complains about ads that target you based off your past Google searches and those are way worse

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;40951952][B]Source:[/B] [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130608]Link[/url] I'm kind of losing respect for Obama after this.[/QUOTE] All three branches were briefed and agreed. It's foolish to place the blame solely on the President. I think something like this was a long time coming, especially post 9/11. Obama or not. I just wonder if the program is as effective as they claim. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;40952247]remind me when there was a national poll about the necessity of this because I can't recall the american society making this choice[/QUOTE] Election Day

[QUOTE=lew06;40952022]"They who can give up [B]essential[/B] liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] That is a key word there. Some people seem to use this quote to demand absolute privacy but I don't think that is what Franklin meant. I don't think he would consider the government not knowing what sort of porn you watch as an [I]essential[/I] liberty.

thanks, obama!

[QUOTE=lew06;40952022]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] This always feels like an overused quote.

[QUOTE=rilez;40952264]All three branches were briefed and agreed. It's foolish to place the blame solely on the President. I think something like this was a long time coming, especially post 9/11. Obama or not. I just wonder if the program is as effective as they claim. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] Election Day[/QUOTE] Really? Foolish to blame him? Come on now. He is DEFENDING an unconstitutional act. He is breaking his oath of office. It is wrong, and goes against what he said when he was running for President the first time. He said no more illegal wiretapping no more anti constitutional spying. But he does the exact opposite. Foolish to blame him I don't think so. He LIED once again to the people. Another broken promise another blow to our freedom. We will never be safe nor with the government knowing everything make us safe. All this shit didn't stop the pressure cooker brothers and it won't stop future attacks.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;40951989]Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both? Seriously though....this is some bullshit.[/QUOTE] Yeah and a wise man once said that this was a requirement for a society to function, so what if some fucking guy disagrees? Reality is harsh, and Obama is speakin' harsh reality.

Obama has been dropped to Bush-level. Can we kick his entire administration out now?

Yes, security that could be gained by other fundamental changes, such as not imprisoning "terrorists" without trial or not making a mess in countries around the globe or proper accessible mental healthcare for citizens. God dammit Obama, people around the globe trusted you to make those changes. These tradeoffs are a lightyear leap in the wrong direction.

BUT THE TERRORISTS

Here I thought that they were[I] public[/I] servants and we were[I] private[/I] individuals. If that is the case, then how come they get to know virtually everything about us while we get to know virtually nothing about them?

"He who trades any freedom for safety gets and deserves neither" -Alfred, The Dark Knight

I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal. The government doesn't care about what you are looking at unless you have already done something to make them suspicious. Why is it that Americans get so riled up about privacy?

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952472]I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal. The government doesn't care about what you are looking at unless you have already done something to make them suspicious. Why is it that Americans get so riled up about privacy?[/QUOTE] all of our meth dealers use facebook

[QUOTE=TheTalon;40952258] The NSA filtering for key words in text messages with bots is nothing. No one complains about ads that target you based off your past Google searches and those are way worse[/QUOTE] The thing is, I can choose not to use Google if their violations of my privacy bother me.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952472]I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal. The government doesn't care about what you are looking at unless you have already done something to make them suspicious. Why is it that Americans get so riled up about privacy?[/QUOTE] Because "if you have nothing to hide why worry" is the stupidest mindset in the world. The government is there to serve us, not make us their bitch. [i]Serve.[/i]