Obama: 'America is not interested in spying on ordinary people' - Polidicks

[img]http://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/upload/2013/08/09/080913obamapresserGE/medium.jpg[/img] [quote]At a Friday afternoon press conference in the dead of summer, President Obama announced major proposals to change how his administration carries out national security policy. The president laid out four goals: 1. Reform the USA PATRIOT Act program that collects telephone programs. 2. Work with Congress to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to introduce an "independent voice" that would "make sure the government's position is challenged by an adversary." 3. Increase transparency. The Department of Justice will be making public the legal rationale for the collection of data. A website will also be created as "a hub" for further transparency. 4. A "high-level group of outside experts" will be formed for "new thinking, for a new era." The independent group will be asked to review surveillance technologies, to ensure there is no abuse and find how the programs can maintain the trust of the public.[/quote] [url]http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/08/obama-america-not-interested-spying-ordinary-people/68480/[/url] These seem like good reforms.

If they weren't interested in spying on ordinary people Xkeyscore and PRISM would not be a thing. Fuck off.

Wow, so this is what it's like to be discriminated against...

What do you mean 'not interested?' Political garbage is what this is. Terrorism is such a global epidemic BECAUSE any 'ordinary' person can be considered a threat. Don't take me wrong these programs are BS but this is a BS answer.

[IMG]http://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/upload/2013/08/09/080913obamapresserGE/medium.jpg[/IMG] Holy shit, Obama looks old and tired as fuck. I actually feel sorry for the guy because I honestly believe that he's doing the best he can.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;41856018][IMG]http://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/upload/2013/08/09/080913obamapresserGE/medium.jpg[/IMG] Holy shit, Obama looks old and tired as fuck. I actually feel sorry for the guy because I honestly believe that he's doing the best he can.[/QUOTE] Every single president that doesn't go in with gray or white hair comes out with it. It's an EXTREMELY stressful job.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;41856018][IMG]http://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/upload/2013/08/09/080913obamapresserGE/medium.jpg[/IMG] Holy shit, Obama looks old and tired as fuck. I actually feel sorry for the guy because I honestly believe that he's doing the best he can.[/QUOTE] It's pretty incredible what stress does to the body. Stay relaxed, friends.

This isn't the first time I've heard him promise transparency and oversight.

I really just hope that he wisens the fuck up. He's not stupid, but it bugs me that he let it get this bad.

If you want to get back in the good graces of the American people then you gotta shut all that shit down.

I think he means to say the government isn't interested in ordinary people at all. You only matter if you're a terrorist or if you have loadsamoney.

Oh god, I clicked on this thread and then out of impulse I checked my posts per day [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6yXmIn5.png[/IMG] :tinfoil:

At first I read this as "America is interested in spying on ordinary people", flipped my shit, clicked this topic and was dissapointed

[QUOTE=Forumaster;41856052]I think he means to say the government isn't interested in ordinary people at all. You only matter if you're a terrorist or if you have loadsamoney.[/QUOTE] Or if you leak intel, in which case you could single-handedly save the space program by fleeing to the Moon.

I honestly don't think these programs or something similar will go away. Call me crazy or tinfoil head or whatever, but I think if the government has the technology to do this they're going to do it, all that this little blunder is going to do is teach them to be more careful about who gets information on it.

Can't say I trust him to follow through with these reforms. Seems like a big PR stunt. If his support wasn't dropping so quickly he won't be doing a damn thing.

Here's the closest thing to a video I could find, by the way: [video=youtube;6byWJyHDsyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6byWJyHDsyE[/video]

Sure, make more promises, like those [i]other[/i] promises you couldn't keep before. Shut all that spying shit down and stop your senseless witch hunt for Snowden as all he did was expose the atrocities you've all been doing. Then maybe we can talk about you guys improving...

But you can't know who is ordinary unless you spy on everyone.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41856077]Can't say I trust him to follow through with these reforms. Seems like a big PR stunt. If his support wasn't dropping so quickly he won't be doing a damn thing.[/QUOTE] Not like support polls really matter when you aren't going to be re-elected, but I question how much control he alone actually has over the surveillance programs.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;41856073]I honestly don't think these programs or something similar will go away. Call me crazy or tinfoil head or whatever, but I think if the government has the technology to do this they're going to do it, all that this little blunder is going to do is teach them to be more careful about who gets information on it.[/QUOTE] How would you get people to analyse and watch everybody all the time? The technology exists, but why would they even bother? It would be horrifically costly to build and maintain such a network as well. Plus there's the fact that there's hundreds of groups and sub groups all having meetings in a giant bureaucracy. If the government ran the trains on time and repaired roads with utmost efficiency, along with being diplomatic geniuses and constantly winning wars without breaking so much a sweat or facing opposition at home, I would be worried at that stage.

[QUOTE=Foogooman;41856087]But you can't know who is ordinary unless you spy on everyone.[/QUOTE] plot twist, everyone is special.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41856092]How would you get people to analyse and watch everybody all the time? The technology exists, but why would they even bother? It would be horrifically costly to build and maintain such a network as well.[/QUOTE] It's the age of Technology, if we/they can't do it today, they will be able to tommorow. Our storage and microfication is growing exponentially. The problems of "But who would do the paper work" are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Evilweazel's point remains, if they can, they will. [editline]15th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;41856092]Plus there's the fact that there's hundreds of groups and sub groups all having meetings in a giant bureaucracy. If the government ran the trains on time and repaired roads with utmost efficiency, along with being diplomatic geniuses and constantly winning wars without breaking so much a sweat or facing opposition at home, I would be worried at that stage.[/QUOTE] Yes, but certain people within those groups and subgroups have more influence than others. Especially the 'Defense Advisor' type generals. If a closed door meeting decides something high upstairs, it gets executed, efficiently or otherwise. Basic chain of command.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41856118]It's the age of Technology, if we/they can't do it today, they will be able to tommorow. Our storage and microfication is growing exponentially. The problems of "But who would do the paper work" are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Evilweazel's point remains, if they can, they will.[/QUOTE] What incentive is there for them to do so? Politics is more about the man at the top giving rewards to the people he is dependent on for power, in return for their loyalty. If he funds some program that bites into revenue without showing any good results he's going to be booted out. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;41856118]Yes, but certain people within those groups and subgroups have more influence than others. Especially the 'Defense Advisor' type generals. If a closed door meeting decides something high upstairs, it gets executed, efficiently or otherwise. Basic chain of command.[/QUOTE] They're powerless without the loyalty of their underlings.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41856139]What incentive is there for them to do so? Politics is more about the man at the top giving rewards to the people he is dependent on for power, in return for their loyalty. If he funds some program that bites into revenue without showing any good results he's going to be booted out. They're powerless without the loyalty of their underlings.[/QUOTE] Because elected officials aren't neccesarily always the most powerful. (ex. J Edgar Hoover). And yes, any command structure doesn't work unless the underlings cooperate. But that is the folly of man, many bad things have happened because the underlings just cooperated. (ex. WW2) Hell Right here, right now, why don't ALL the underlings in the world stop and create a Utopia? It is because habit is hard to break, and bravery is rare to find. (ex. Ed Snowden {Atleast supposedly} ) Also Incentive? "Security" or any other catchy sound bite that seems plausibly acceptable compared to recent prior events.

nothing will change.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41856172]Because elected officials aren't neccesarily always the most powerful. (ex. J Edgar Hoover). And yes, any command structure doesn't work unless the underlings cooperate. But that is the folly of man, many bad things have happened because the underlings just cooperated. (ex. WW2) Hell Right here, right now, why don't ALL the underlings in the world stop and create a Utopia? It is because habit is hard to break, and bravery is rare to find. (ex. Ed Snowden {Atleast supposedly} )[/QUOTE] Because there's a big incentive to support your ruler if he manages to be competent. We are slowly moving towards a system where rulers are dependent on the whims of their underlings. Of course, they have to try and appeal towards as many people as possible in order to stay in power. Thus are generally the most agreeable and workable policies emerge, and society improves. Another name for it is democracy, my favorite method of governance, for a superior one has yet to exist.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41856193]Because there's a big incentive to support your ruler if he manages to be competent. We are slowly moving towards a system where rulers are dependent on the whims of their underlings. Of course, they have to try and appeal towards as many people as possible in order to stay in power. Thus are generally the most agreeable and workable policies emerge, and society improves. Another name for it is democracy, my favorite method of governance, for a superior one has yet to exist.[/QUOTE] Right, but I am saying that the 'Leader' or 'Representatives' (Which are susceptible to "Underlings"), are not necessarily the most powerful. Lobbyists, unelected long term officials, and Military members are a large portion of what comprises the military industrial complex that decides whether allowing this sort of thing to happen is profitable or beneficial for 'security'.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41856225]Right, but I am saying that the 'Leader' or 'Representatives' (Which are susceptible to "Underlings"), are not necessarily the most powerful. Lobbyists, unelected long term officials, and Military members are a large portion of what comprises the military industrial complex that decides whether allowing this sort of thing to happen is profitable or beneficial for 'security'.[/QUOTE] Collectively they hold more power but individually they don't. If you want to improve America, the first thing one must do is start making the leaders more dependent on pleasing more people.

the barack attack is attacking my FREEDOM