FTFA- President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week

So yeah, it is a repeat from last week dumbmitter.

Hey, I got an idea - why don't you make a countdown clock. "It's been x days, x hours and x minutes since Obama said he was going to do something but hasn't done it yet." Then we'll know you're really serious about this issue.

Dinki: FTFA- President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week

So yeah, it is a repeat from last week dumbmitter.

Hmmm, the article's datelined today. I just tried to find an earlier story on this specific decision (keeping Investigative Data Warehouse secrets) and found none older than today (and only a couple of others at that).

It strikes me that it would be kinda, um, dumb to spout off like that and have it turn out this is the first this particular decision has been reported, no matter when the actual action took place.

We already know about SG-1. Just admit it already.

Dinki: FTFA- President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week

So yeah, it is a repeat from last week dumbmitter.

Someone needs to humor engine, because you aren't processing the joke correctly.

Also, stop expecting Obama to fulfill all your dreams- everyone in the media and in America. He's going to do things you personally disagree with.

I wish there was some way to determine if someone was evil by the actions they take. I mean, it was so simple when W was president...everything he did was evil. But now the world has changed. Obama is too good to be evil, even when he does the same as W.

Think of it this way:

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are speaking softly to another person in an empty room?

Yes.

Do you have the same reasonable expectation when you are yelling in a crowded room full of people?

No.

Telephones, internet, etc.. is the equivalent of yelling in a crowded room. You should assume that everything you say or type could possibly be overheard by others.

Now, RECORDED is a different thing.


/I am not a lawyer and have no idea what I am talking about.

THIS JUST IN: Governments sometimes keep secrets.
/romero

The Reptilians got to him :(

Lando Lincoln: Hey, I got an idea - why don't you make a countdown clock. "It's been x days, x hours and x minutes since Obama said he was going to do something but hasn't done it yet."

Wait...Keith Olbermann hasn't?

"On April 3, the Obama administration issued no presidential statement or general Justice Department news release when it told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday."

That was just two days ago.

vernonFL: Think of it this way:

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are speaking softly to another person in an empty room?

Yes.

Do you have the same reasonable expectation when you are yelling in a crowded room full of people?

No.

Telephones, internet, etc.. is the equivalent of yelling in a crowded room. You should assume that everything you say or type could possibly be overheard by others.

Now, RECORDED is a different thing.


/I am not a lawyer and have no idea what I am talking about.

Let me first say that the use of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in court decisions tends to piss me off, because it has led to a self-fulfilling degeneration of privacy rights over the years.

That said, I don't think that the answers that you gave to the analogies you presented are necessarily correct, as there are other significant variables missing. The most obvious that comes to mind is "where are these rooms, and who owns them/controls access to them?"

vernonFL: Telephones, internet, etc.. is the equivalent of yelling in a crowded room.

No.

Tellingthem: "On April 3, the Obama administration issued no presidential statement or general Justice Department news release when it told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday."

That was just two days ago.

Obama is filing court briefs now?

Huh. No wonder people are angry at him. He's taking over the judiciary!

On April 3, the Obama administration...told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Good move Obama and a well placed "obvious" tag subby.

Also subby, next time a story comes out for the first time about something that happened a week before, bend time and space for us in order to deliver that story in real time.

DoctorCal: Tellingthem: "On April 3, the Obama administration issued no presidential statement or general Justice Department news release when it told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday."

That was just two days ago.

Obama is filing court briefs now?

Huh. No wonder people are angry at him. He's taking over the judiciary!

I didn't say that. I was just pointing out that this isn't a repeat from last week. And the article itself says the "Obama administration.

sloppy shoes: Dinki: FTFA- President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week

So yeah, it is a repeat from last week dumbmitter.

Someone needs to humor engine, because you aren't processing the joke correctly.

Also, stop expecting Obama to fulfill all your dreams- everyone in the media and in America. He's going to do things you personally disagree with.

You mean like exist?

Tellingthem: DoctorCal: Tellingthem: "On April 3, the Obama administration issued no presidential statement or general Justice Department news release when it told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday."

That was just two days ago.

Obama is filing court briefs now?

Huh. No wonder people are angry at him. He's taking over the judiciary!

I didn't say that. I was just pointing out that this isn't a repeat from last week. And the article itself says the "Obama administration.

Yep. It refers to an administration action on April 3rd. You chose to emphasize the judicial action from last Friday.

/Is seriously pissed off at Obama for continuing this crap.

Lando Lincoln: Hey, I got an idea - why don't you make a countdown clock. "It's been x days, x hours and x minutes since Obama said he was going to do something but hasn't done it yet." Then we'll know you're really serious about this issue.


Are you serious? The guy committed to pulling out of Iraq, closing down Gitmo, rolling back the bullshiat tax breaks for the upper 4% of the country, actually talking to countries instead of invading them for no reason....

Not tomorrow but for Chrissakes, he's been in office for three months. Bush was jerking off at some ranch somewhere at this time in his administration.

Before you pull out the "Messiah" horseshiat, no one thinks that. But explain to us what the alternative was.

DoctorCal: /Is seriously pissed off at Obama for continuing this crap.

you didn't really think that our government was actually going to give up the ability to wire tap US citizens, did you? The reason I opposed all this slavering stupidity in the first place was precisely because I know that it would never go away. It didn't matter WHO became the next President - once we opened the door to wire tapping and invasions of our privacy, it was (and is) only going to get worse from this point forward.

The absolute best we can hope for is that Obama won't abuse his authority too badly. But sooner or later we'll get a President who won't be very nice about it at all and then all bets are off.

Mugato: Lando Lincoln: Hey, I got an idea - why don't you make a countdown clock. "It's been x days, x hours and x minutes since Obama said he was going to do something but hasn't done it yet." Then we'll know you're really serious about this issue.


Are you serious? The guy committed to pulling out of Iraq, closing down Gitmo, rolling back the bullshiat tax breaks for the upper 4% of the country, actually talking to countries instead of invading them for no reason....

Not tomorrow but for Chrissakes, he's been in office for three months. Bush was jerking off at some ranch somewhere at this time in his administration.

Before you pull out the "Messiah" horseshiat, no one thinks that. But explain to us what the alternative was.

McCain dying and Palin invading Iran and god knows what else

Please continue to claim that this isn't a dupe. (new window)

Mugato: re you serious?

The guy is doing some good things but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a shiat on him when he does retarded things, aka keep Bush era homeland security policies.

Headso: Mugato: re you serious?

The guy is doing some good things but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a shiat on him when he does retarded things, aka keep Bush era homeland security policies.

I really do think that all those retarded and asinine policies are here to stay. Obama might not get around to changing any of them (and God knows, he's got enough to occupy his time just dealing with our economy), but eventually someone WILL start to abuse that authority.

Weaver95: DoctorCal: /Is seriously pissed off at Obama for continuing this crap.

you didn't really think that our government was actually going to give up the ability to wire tap US citizens, did you? The reason I opposed all this slavering stupidity in the first place was precisely because I know that it would never go away. It didn't matter WHO became the next President - once we opened the door to wire tapping and invasions of our privacy, it was (and is) only going to get worse from this point forward.

The absolute best we can hope for is that Obama won't abuse his authority too badly. But sooner or later we'll get a President who won't be very nice about it at all and then all bets are off.

I thought that there was a greater chance with Obama as president that that ability would be surrendered. (There were several other candidates in whom I would have had much more confidence.)

I think that it's really just the entrenched unelected that we really have to worry about. It's like, the entirety of our electoral influence over the Federal government amounts to a fly, and we expect that to make progress with an ever increasing pile of crap. And all the fly does is lay eggs on it.

So you're saying that big government Democrats are supportive of invasive measures that deny us our right to privacy? Imagine that.

Nothing good can come of knowing. I'm vaguely aware that some truly awful shiat went down, but I'd rather the rest of the world not be acutely aware of that fact.

"Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler"

"Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday.

Schmaler said the department had a statement prepared in case anyone called to ask about the filing. But in the NSA case, and the FBI case, the department did not follow the Bush administration practice of e-mailing reporters a copy of government briefs in newsworthy cases as soon as they are filed with a court."

They filed a court brief on Friday two days ago. This is not a repeat.

Weaver95: Headso: Mugato: re you serious?

The guy is doing some good things but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a shiat on him when he does retarded things, aka keep Bush era homeland security policies.

I really do think that all those retarded and asinine policies are here to stay. Obama might not get around to changing any of them (and God knows, he's got enough to occupy his time just dealing with our economy), but eventually someone WILL start to abuse that authority.

Well, I've said for a long time that the most effective way to get real public backlash on erosion of privacy rights would be this: take every tactic that's used for the "war on drugs", drunk driving, (and, added since I started saying it, the "war on turrr"), and start using them to harass gun owners. That might create enough backlash to get some things restored legislatively.

DoctorCal: Please continue to claim that this isn't a dupe. (new window)

FTFA you linked:
President Barack Obama invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed


FTFA this thread is about:
Despite a pledge to open government, the Obama administration has endorsed a Bush-era decision to keep secret key details of an FBI computer database that allows agents and analysts to search a billion documents with a wealth of personal information about Americans and foreigners. President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week that it would not second-guess the previous administration's decisions to withhold some information about the bureau's Investigative Data Warehouse. [All emphases added]

I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the NSA and FBI are separate agencies. I also hear tell that wirertapping is different from maintaining databases, though I am less than clear on the particulars, so I could be wrong. Perhaps my limbic brain is taking up too much of my headspace and pushing on my forebrain.

It's. Not. A. Dupe.

Is that simple enough for you or shall I translate it into monosyllabic words so you can understand?

Tellingthem: "Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler"

"Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday.

Schmaler said the department had a statement prepared in case anyone called to ask about the filing. But in the NSA case, and the FBI case, the department did not follow the Bush administration practice of e-mailing reporters a copy of government briefs in newsworthy cases as soon as they are filed with a court."

They filed a court brief on Friday two days ago. This is not a repeat.

Very well. My apologies. In either case, I wouldn't want a petty argument over semantic hair-splitting to smoke-screen the issue at the root of this: Obama's action here sucks, and it's that much worse because it's completely contradictory to one of his fundamental campaign positions.

MuadDib: DoctorCal: Please continue to claim that this isn't a dupe. (new window)

FTFA you linked:
President Barack Obama invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed


FTFA this thread is about:
Despite a pledge to open government, the Obama administration has endorsed a Bush-era decision to keep secret key details of an FBI computer database that allows agents and analysts to search a billion documents with a wealth of personal information about Americans and foreigners. President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week that it would not second-guess the previous administration's decisions to withhold some information about the bureau's Investigative Data Warehouse. [All emphases added]

I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the NSA and FBI are separate agencies. I also hear tell that wirertapping is different from maintaining databases, though I am less than clear on the particulars, so I could be wrong. Perhaps my limbic brain is taking up too much of my headspace and pushing on my forebrain.

It's. Not. A. Dupe.

Is that simple enough for you or shall I translate it into monosyllabic words so you can understand?

I know it's Fark and all, but is that really necessary?

MuadDib: DoctorCal: Please continue to claim that this isn't a dupe. (new window)

FTFA you linked:
President Barack Obama invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed


FTFA this thread is about:
Despite a pledge to open government, the Obama administration has endorsed a Bush-era decision to keep secret key details of an FBI computer database that allows agents and analysts to search a billion documents with a wealth of personal information about Americans and foreigners. President Barack Obama's Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week that it would not second-guess the previous administration's decisions to withhold some information about the bureau's Investigative Data Warehouse. [All emphases added]


It would appear that Obama's position on numerous fronts regarding the right to privacy is status quo, where "status quo" = allowing...hell, encouraging...Federal agencies to run roughshod over the populace. This saddens me.

One of the reasons I liked Obama was that I thought he was the most likely candidate (over Clinton and McCain) to actually cede executive powers back to the legislative where they more properly belong. In that regard this upsets me. On the other hand, Obama has done an enormous amount in the past few months to aid transparency in government and has done things to begin to unravel the web of secrecy put into place by the likes of Dick Cheney. So the fact that he is transparent in some regards while still clinging to national security in others might lead one to believe that there are facts that are truly sensitive to national security. It requires a modicum of trust in this administration, which, for the moment, I am willing to grant.

/for the record, I gave Bush the benefit of trust on WMDs, once you lose my trust, THEN I don't like it when you hide things.

You know, the whole "He's not changing anything in this area, so HE'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING AT ALL, HE'S JUST LIKE BUSH!" is getting annoying.

Is it disappointing he is mirroring Bush here? Yes. Should we criticize the president on this, and express our disappointment? Definitely. Does not changing policy in one area mean his whole administration is a failure and his campaign was a lie? No.

Blah blah blah...
b..b..but he's only been in office days!
blah blah blah wargarbl!!

Remove all Republicans: He hasn't got his full staff in yet. This is clearly just a stopgap measure until he's all set and ready to destroy the decision. You can't go against the prior administration until you have the proper ammunition to charge them. Give him time. Change doesn't come easily.

Lots of people in the UK were saying things like that about Blair for a while after he got elected.

You'll learn.....

/Obama is a Blair clone.
//It's all about presentation, do one thing while saying another. Lots of big announcements about what you're "going" to do, then quietly slip out the news that you're doing something else at 8PM on a Friday.
///Government official here sent an email when Princess Diana died saying that it was "now a perfect time to make any announcements that we don't want to get any press".

Just from a purely IT perspective, that sounds like it'd be a cool project to work on.

FTFA:

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler offered a different explanation: "Some withholdings are necessary in order to protect privacy, national security and other interests."



The real reason they won't disclose this information is because if it was disclosed, every single citizen who made a phone call or sent an email within the past few years would have grounds for a lawsuit against the government for violation of constitutional rights.

nmrsnr: One of the reasons I liked Obama was that I thought he was the most likely candidate (over Clinton and McCain) to actually cede executive powers back to the legislative where they more properly belong

No, please Lord no.

Let me clarify the three branches of government for you:
1) Executive - President
2) Legislative - Congress
3)Judicial - the Courts

Executive power belongs with the executive branch.

Holy Lord, read the Constitution or at least watch Schoolhouse Rock (new window).

What worries me is you vote.

Remove all Republicans: He hasn't got his full staff in yet. This is clearly just a stopgap measure until he's all set and ready to destroy the decision. You can't go against the prior administration until you have the proper ammunition to charge them. Give him time. Change doesn't come easily.

Yeah, that is certainly it. Give him a break it has only been 90 days. He can't possibly make these types of decisions without a full staff.

Fail you can believe in.

fenrael23: THIS JUST IN: Governments sometimes keep secrets.
/romero

That's fine; just don't campaign on the fact that you will get rid of the prior administrations secrecy.

I think most rational adults are willing to accept that there is a complex can of worms buried in this particular issue, and that any snap decisions on the subject would be a mistake.

Carefully retooling the process once with careful consideration will be substantially better than making blanket unconsidered gestures that will have no meaning in the longer term.

Die Polizei: fenrael23: THIS JUST IN: Governments sometimes keep secrets.
/romero

That's fine; just don't campaign on the fact that you will get rid of the prior administrations secrecy.

Soon, people will figure out that politicians, no matter what affiliation, are playing for one team...and we are not on it.

Shaggy_C: So you're saying that big government Democrats are supportive of invasive measures that deny us our right to privacy? Imagine that.

Yeah, and it was the "big government" republicans who gave them that power. If people didn't want those they don't trust to have it, they shouldn't have given those they do the power in the first place.

I got into many arguments with my conservative family about this, FISA, Patriot Act, et al. This was my argument, but they thought the people they trusted would be in power forever. They failed to grasp you do not give powers to an administration you trust if you aren't willing to give it to an administration you won't.