Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   It looks like President Obama will piss off just about everyone with his reforms to the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs - which is a good thing   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NSA, Julian Sanchez, President Obama, reforms  
•       •       •

1484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 12:12:57 PM  
Al Qaeda will be happy!

/hurrrr
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 12:16:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Al Qaeda will be happy!


I doubt it.  I can't imagine that anything really vital will be eliminated.

I suspect that the most controversial functions will be moved to classified programs anyway.
 
2014-01-16 12:20:37 PM  

vpb: Lionel Mandrake: Al Qaeda will be happy!

I doubt it.  I can't imagine that anything really vital will be eliminated.

I suspect that the most controversial functions will be moved to classified programs anyway.


One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 12:24:40 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:

One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.

I think there will be slight changes.
 
2014-01-16 12:44:51 PM  
That had to be the most useless farking article ever. If Obama does x then these group w gets mad. If he does y, then group c gets mad.

He's going to announce reforms. Some of the details will be left to congress, where it belongs.
 
2014-01-16 12:50:07 PM  

vpb: I think there will be slight changes.


Nothing more than window-dressing so Obama can say he cares about the Constitutional rights of Americans.
 
2014-01-16 01:14:19 PM  

vpb: Lionel Mandrake: Al Qaeda will be happy!

I doubt it.  I can't imagine that anything really vital will be eliminated.

I suspect that the most controversial functions will be moved to classified programs anyway.


They're already classified.

Plus, unless the Al Qaeda member in question is a "United States Person", no special warrant is needed to monitor them for foreign intelligence reasons no matter where they are.  That will cover the 99.999% of Al Qaeda members in the World, and for the 0.001% it doesn't cover, they can get FISA warrants like they are supposed to do.
 
2014-01-16 01:25:46 PM  
static.someecards.com
 
2014-01-16 01:28:21 PM  
Welp, that bastard'll never get re-elected after this!
 
2014-01-16 01:29:04 PM  

slayer199: vpb: I think there will be slight changes.

Nothing more than window-dressing so Obama can say he cares about the Constitutional rights of Americans.


If anyone has enough material to get Obama impeached, it's the NSA.
 
2014-01-16 01:30:24 PM  
The headline of course assumes that the opinions of Feinstein and secret courts hold just as much value as those of journalists and the general public.

I can see that come into dispute.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:28 PM  

vpb: Marcus Aurelius:

One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.

I think there will be slight changes.


So the way reality works then??

Change like this is gradual, the President (Conservative or Liberal) can't just slam his fist down and demand sweeping, far-reaching alterations that take place TEN MINUTES AGO.

From Elizabeth Warren to President Obama, apparently no one can even SAY anything without "paying lip service" and "going into election mode."
 
2014-01-16 01:44:39 PM  
On one of the issues listed I'd actually prefer if they continue to let the NSA do its thing. In my opinion, the NSA hacking the encryption of large online security companies actually forced those companies to rewrite code and change their encryption methods. You can be almost certain that in addition to the NSA there were probably other world intelligence agencies that had gotten behind those closed doors as well, which means that when the companies changed their encryption methods more agencies than just the NSA found themselves back at square one. So if the NSA keeps hacking these companies, it will force the companies to constantly rewrite their encryption methods and keep the prying eyes of other countries out as well.
 
2014-01-16 01:45:15 PM  
I've always hated the so-called logic of "well if this plan pisses everyone off, it must be the right thing to do!" It just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
2014-01-16 01:48:02 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: vpb: Lionel Mandrake: Al Qaeda will be happy!

I doubt it.  I can't imagine that anything really vital will be eliminated.

I suspect that the most controversial functions will be moved to classified programs anyway.

One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.


It's a start. The fact that there was enough pressure, for long enough, to get the President to do this is encouraging. At the beginning of all this, I (and probably the NSA as well) expected it to quietly disappear by the time some other scandal/"scandal" came around to dominate the news cycle. Whether it's due to Americans paying more attention, or Teabagger politicians using it to smear Obama regardless of the consequences, it didn't just go away.

It's a baby step, yes, but a step nonetheless.
 
2014-01-16 01:48:38 PM  
The logic of "everyone hates it so it must be good" as applied to politics is used only by utterly unaware retards, at least from my personal experience.

Also, Obama won't be able to do dick to seriously reform the security, military, and intelligence apparatuses.
 
2014-01-16 01:50:00 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I've always hated the so-called logic of "well if this plan pisses everyone off, it must be the right thing to do!" It just doesn't make any sense at all.


Dammit! Beaten. Well, you and me both. What if the plan is legitimately shiatty from everyone's perspective?
 
2014-01-16 01:50:30 PM  

LordJiro: Marcus Aurelius: vpb: Lionel Mandrake: Al Qaeda will be happy!

I doubt it.  I can't imagine that anything really vital will be eliminated.

I suspect that the most controversial functions will be moved to classified programs anyway.

One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.

It's a start. The fact that there was enough pressure, for long enough, to get the President to do this is encouraging. At the beginning of all this, I (and probably the NSA as well) expected it to quietly disappear by the time some other scandal/"scandal" came around to dominate the news cycle. Whether it's due to Americans paying more attention, or Teabagger politicians using it to smear Obama regardless of the consequences, it didn't just go away.

It's a baby step, yes, but a step nonetheless.


The Snowden revelations have to peter out first.  Then it will be back to business as usual.   We didn't get to this point overnight.  It took the dedicated efforts of the NSA working 24x7x365 for years before they managed to break every single wiretap law on the books a billion times over.  They're hardly going to stop just because someone told them to.
 
2014-01-16 01:58:53 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: The logic of "everyone hates it so it must be good" as applied to politics is used only by utterly unaware retards, at least from my personal experience.

Also, Obama won't be able to do dick to seriously reform the security, military, and intelligence apparatuses.


Congress hates this one weird trick!
 
2014-01-16 02:04:06 PM  

incendi: Welp, that bastard'll never get re-elected after this!


So the second someone begins their final term, we should just let them do anything they want.  You probably read this some time last year and thought it sounded pretty clever.  You should use it every chance you get so people will think you're clever too.
 
2014-01-16 02:04:37 PM  
Lip service, then business proceeds as usual, nothing to worry about, move along...
 
2014-01-16 02:06:00 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: The logic of "everyone hates it so it must be good" as applied to politics is used only by utterly unaware retards, at least from my personal experience.


But it always works when the judges on "Law & Order" use that tactic!
 
2014-01-16 02:10:49 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: incendi: Welp, that bastard'll never get re-elected after this!

So the second someone begins their final term, we should just let them do anything they want.  You probably read this some time last year and thought it sounded pretty clever.  You should use it every chance you get so people will think you're clever too.

i855.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-16 02:17:10 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Car_Ramrod: I've always hated the so-called logic of "well if this plan pisses everyone off, it must be the right thing to do!" It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Dammit! Beaten. Well, you and me both. What if the plan is legitimately shiatty from everyone's perspective?


In a democracy, or in a democratic republic, if EVERYONE hates it, no one will vote for it.

However, if you start with competing plans and start trading a higher number here for a lower number there, what you're left with is oftentimes palatable to most while still being less than perfect in the eyes of those with the most hand in creating the original competing visions.

In the modern political climate, where anything short of 103% victory (complete with public shaming of the loser) is a loss, the article writes itself - if a plan as initially worded doesn't pass, the compromise plan is "awful" according to the camps of the competing sides but "palatable" when examined by impartial (politically) entities.

Almost like the examinations of proposed compromise legislation are themselves political machination.
 
2014-01-16 02:29:03 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: incendi: Welp, that bastard'll never get re-elected after this!

So the second someone begins their final term, we should just let them do anything they want.  You probably read this some time last year and thought it sounded pretty clever.  You should use it every chance you get so people will think you're clever too.


THAT'S what you took from that post? Hahahaha wow.
 
2014-01-16 02:31:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Car_Ramrod: I've always hated the so-called logic of "well if this plan pisses everyone off, it must be the right thing to do!" It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Dammit! Beaten. Well, you and me both. What if the plan is legitimately shiatty from everyone's perspective?

In a democracy, or in a democratic republic, if EVERYONE hates it, no one will vote for it.

However, if you start with competing plans and start trading a higher number here for a lower number there, what you're left with is oftentimes palatable to most while still being less than perfect in the eyes of those with the most hand in creating the original competing visions.

In the modern political climate, where anything short of 103% victory (complete with public shaming of the loser) is a loss, the article writes itself - if a plan as initially worded doesn't pass, the compromise plan is "awful" according to the camps of the competing sides but "palatable" when examined by impartial (politically) entities.

Almost like the examinations of proposed compromise legislation are themselves political machination.


Right, but that's not related to this. "The creators of the original idea are pissed their pure ideals were not adhered to" does not equate to "everyone's pissed off". Furthermore, your explanation is going with the idea that a good compromise will be more or less directly in the middle of the proposals. As we have often seen, that's not often the definition of a "good" compromise (ie Proposal A is decent, Proposal B is insane and detrimental, therefore Compromise C will split the difference and be merely terrible), nor will the compromise actually be in the middle (ie "I got 98% of what I wanted.")

I just don't think that a compromise/solution can be proclaimed "a good thing" just by virtue of it making a certain segment of the population upset.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:40 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Furthermore, your explanation is going with the idea that a good compromise will be more or less directly in the middle of the proposals.


No, my explanation was "horse-trading", which only tends toward the middle in a rhetorical sense, and is baked into the concept of Congress (while also being decried. Sort of a "Well, it sucks, but it's better than what we had before" compromise of its own).

Car_Ramrod: I just don't think that a compromise/solution can be proclaimed "a good thing" just by virtue of it making a certain segment of the population upset.


That's accurate.

I was working more the other way around - that making a lot of people upset is often the effect of compromise, as they feel they traded too much for too little, or that the things traded were priceless, or that the mushy middle undoes the concept of the law in the first place.

Obviously, if everyone got what they wanted outright, no one would be upset about a compromised outcome.
 
2014-01-16 02:51:02 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: That had to be the most useless farking article ever. If Obama does x then these group w gets mad. If he does y, then group c gets mad.

He's going to announce reforms. Some of the details will be left to congress, where it belongs.


The amusing part is watching our right wing friends who all absolutely hated the nsa under obama throw a fit about any trimming he (congress) gets through.
 
2014-01-16 02:56:52 PM  
Meeting in the middle only works if both parties are standing on solid ground. The actual "compromise" here is between what the surveillance community and the chickenhawks want him to do (nothing) and what should be done (a lot).

So we're going to get pretend-to-care legislation. It will upset the NSA because it will take a tiny sliver of their power away maybe, but more likely it will just force a giant bureaucracy to change slightly which is pretty much all it takes for giant bureaucracies to throw giant hissy fits. Everyone else will be upset because it only addresses the phone issues by a small amount, and ignores the rest of it. We will still be living in a police state with a shiny facade that nobody with money or status or conventional opinions cares to look past, and nobody else dares to look past. And Obama and/or Congress will look like great compromisers who get things done to the extremely stupid.

Best case scenario is that if Greenwald and Snowden have been holding back the worst parts, this dog and pony show provokes them into printing them.
 
2014-01-16 04:15:18 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: One thing I am certain of is that nothing at the NSA will change in the slightest.


This. They'll feign outrage to sell it to the people. Absolutely nothing will change at all, not even a blip to them.
 
2014-01-16 04:28:53 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Also, Obama won't be able to do dick to seriously reform the security, military, and intelligence apparatuses.


The NSA is actually under military control, so as Commander in Chief he has the authority to make broad changes.
 
2014-01-16 05:30:03 PM  
Remember nothing would change at all if the information revealed by Snowden was still secret, as the government intended it to be. Reform will be about as genuine as an apology from someone who's only sorry he got caught.
 
2014-01-16 09:53:43 PM  
so the NSA is going to follow these new laws?

AHAHAHAHAHA

sleep tight, amerika
 
2014-01-16 10:17:42 PM  
How do we know anything will change? Whatever changes they make will be state secrets, just like the decisions the secret court makes about what the NSA can/can't do.

Secrecy and democracy are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other, but not both.
 
2014-01-17 12:48:29 AM  

MrEricSir: How do we know anything will change? Whatever changes they make will be state secrets, just like the decisions the secret court makes about what the NSA can/can't do.

Secrecy and democracy are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other, but not both.


mrEdude: so the NSA is going to follow these new laws?

AHAHAHAHAHA

sleep tight, amerika


I have seen you "two" post near simultaneously in multiple threads in the past few days. What is going on here?
 
2014-01-17 01:05:49 AM  

Robyr: I have seen you "two" post near simultaneously in multiple threads in the past few days. What is going on here?


Not entirely sure what you're talking about, so it's probably the Illuminati.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report