Obama: NSA reforms will give Americans 'more confidence' in surveillance programs

[Indi Guy]

Source: NBC News

President Barack Obama said he will propose new reforms to the National Security Agency aimed at giving Americans "more confidence" in the organization after various leaks revealed numerous wide-ranging government surveillance programs.

"The NSA actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people's emails, not listening to ... the contents of their phone calls," the president said Thursday during an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

"Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws.  And part of what we're trying to do over the next month or so is having done an independent review and brought a whole bunch of folks, civil libertarians and-- lawyers and others to examine what's being done."

"I'll be proposing some self-restraint on the NSA and initiating some reforms that can give people some more confidence."


Read more: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/05/21776882-obama-nsa-reforms-will-give-americans-more-confidence-in-surveillance-programs

[alp227]

1. "confidence in surviellance programs"? SMH, Obama.

Why not GET RID OF THOSE INVASIVE PROGRAMS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Richard Stallman suggests "end it don't mend it" with govt surveillance and access to personal info dossiers.

[cstanleytech]

5. Because there are actual legit threats to our nation out there alp.

I'm not saying I fully support all of the actions by the NSA or the CIA but I am a realist and in our world there are groups willing to do things like crash airplanes full of innocents into buildings so it would be a bit stupid not to provide the tools to do the job of preventing such things.
That aside I would definitely like more oversight and I personally believe that there do need to be some changes made such as moving the control of the database of telephone numbers called and received and placing it the control of the Judiciary branch of the government so as to act as a firewall.

[L0oniX]

36. Corporations, SCOTUS, military budget and cops are more of a threat.

If fact they aren't just a threat, they are actually killing us in so many ways. Well ...I suppose someone has to love the NSA ...they are people too.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. @#$% You

Stay the @#$% out of my personal stuff. It's the @#$%ing law.

Proposing "self-restraint" to the NSA is the most inane thing I've heard in months.

Sincerely,

First-Way Manny

[zeemike]

7. I think what he is saying is.

We are going to spy on you and there is nothing you can do about it, so you might as well learn to love the NSA and the surveillance state.
I am sure there will be a movie coming out where the hero is a NSA operative that stops some evil plot to make us love them....it worked for torture with 24.

[SpcMnky]

10. "It's the @#$%ing law." Excellent Point.

Folks like to pretend that we don't already have privacy laws in place in this country, and try to claim that by simply using the internet we give up all claims to privacy, what nonsense.

I mean, if that is how it's gonna be for now on, at least be up front about it... but don't lie about it, and pretend.

[randome]

25. Right. It's the 'fucking law' that says the NSA cannot spy on you.

What do you propose to keep your fears at bay? Pass another law?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Good thinking.

Write a new Constitution that legalizes it.

[randome]

34. According to you and others, the NSA pays no heed to the Constitution.

So there is literally nothing, I would assume, that would keep the paranoia at bay. Unless MannyGoldstein was in charge of national security matters.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

39. The NSA has shamelessly lied to Congress and the United States about its activities.

The Administration continues to keep their interpretation of the Patriot Act and the justification for their domestic surveillance protocols secret.

It's not paranoia to continue to call for an end to the NSA's domestic surveillance program - it's prudent.

[randome]

42. They don't have a 'domestic surveillance program'. They are forbidden by law from spying on us.

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

There's nothing wrong with reining in their foreign activities but at least see things for how they truly are.

The metadata stuff has long been ruled okay by the courts. By 'lying', you probably mean Clapper's testimony which he was, to say the least, inartful at trying to answer questions yet at the same time keep secrets. Plus the item he 'lied' about -the metadata- was already known and had been for years!

Change is great. But to see spies under the bed requires more than just apprehensions and fears.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[idwiyo]

44. Don't forget to mention that "US doesn't torture" 'cause it's legal. Same shit.

[randome]

45. Good point.

But the only things that protect us from abuse are laws and strong oversight. It seems the NSA needs much stronger oversight because, in the end, it doesn't matter what is 'true' or 'accurate', what matters is the confidence people have or don't have in the government.

But also, when hyperbole is used, fewer people will listen and the chances of getting meaningful reforms go down.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

46. Doesn't "lying" by government officials come under the heading...

...of what is 'true' or 'accurate'? I would say that it does; and that it very much does matter in the end. ...and this is much the reason we have little or no confidence in said government.

[font color="darkred" size="3"]We pay their bloody salaries! How much of a burden are we putting on them to merely obey the law and tell us the truth?? This is dirt simple!![/font]

[randome]

47. Only Congress can prosecute someone for lying to Congress.

And they don't seem to think it was such a big deal. You can call it 'lying to the public' -and that sounds right- but, again, Congress just shrugged it off.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

49. How about lying to the FISA court...

...after breaking its rules? The NSA admitted they did this and nothing seemed to come of it.

You try lying to a federal court & see what gets shrugged off. The duplicity is stark and exasperating.

[randome]

52. I'm not sure what incident you're referring to.

I recall the NSA conducted an internal audit and afterwards 'confessed' to the FISA court that it had broken some laws but every law enforcement agency on the planet is guilty of occasional over-reach and violation. That doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and forget about it but it all needs to be taken in context.

I would be much in favor of more transparency about what the FISA court actually allows. More statistics, if nothing else. Maybe even expand the court to 24 individuals if that sounds better.

But we have to recognize that there is sometimes a need for secrecy. When a 'regular' judge approves a warrant for an individual, we don't want an email going out to that individual saying, "Greetings. Guess what?"

More oversight, definitely. Even less spying on foreign nations, although I'm not sure how to define 'less' or 'too much'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

55. There you go again, trivializing the NSA's violations of the law.

"...every law enforcement agency on the planet is guilty of occasional over-reach and violation."

First of all, wrong is wrong -- no matter who or how many others are doing it. Secondly The NSA is guilty of vastly more than the "occasional over-reach," wouldn't you say?

[randome]

61. In regard to American's data, no , I don't think they have 'vastly' over-reached.

It's clear they sometimes have trouble separating foreign from domestic communications and there have been examples of abuse, such as when some NSA employees were caught spying on ex-lovers.

But that, too, happens in every law enforcement agency. When abuses occur, corrections are made. The system is not perfect, by any means, but I hear too much on DU how terrible the NSA is without any solutions being proposed.

Other than 'shutting them down', which is a hyperbolic answer since no one reasonably expects that to happen.

At least I offered a couple of suggestions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

63. Part of the solution is in the very act of voicing opposition,...

...not in stifling or trivializing it.

[randome]

64. Agreed. But we should leave out the hyperbole if we expect anyone to listen.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

65. Well, I guess some over-reach is to be expected, eh?

[questionseverything]

53. thx for the op

as awful as this nsa crap is i do want to stay informed

[Maedhros]

48. You are being willfully ignorant of the details of the Snowden leaks.

The NSA is very, very clearly collecting massive amounts of data on ordinary American citizens. This has been shown over and over again. And you keep repeating the "forbidden by law" meme when, really, we know nothing about how the law is being implemented - all the proceedings and interpretations are kept secret for "national security" reasons.

I appreciate your attempts to carry water for the Administration in the face of some very damaging revelations, but you're not very convincing.

[randome]

50. "...very, very clearly..." and yet "...we know nothing about how the law is being implemented..."

The more hyperbole that is used, the less the chance of getting meaningful reforms.

I agree, we should know more about how the laws are being implemented. There is not enough oversight even with the FISA court. But that's no reason to concoct conspiracy or blackmail theories out of thin air.

Carl Bernstein looked at the evidence and said he thought the NSA's protections to prevent abuse were pretty strong. I agree with that because I actually looked at what those protections are, I didn't reflexively react with anger.

Anger is only appropriate when some egregious abuse has occurred. We don't need a 'smoking gun' to prove this for the NSA but we need more than outrage over legal collections of metadata and fear that the NSA might be violating the law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

54. The scope of the NSA's data collection should be enough to cause alarm

amongst those who value civil liberties. They aren't collecting all that data without intending to use it, and hiding the justifications behind a wall of secrecy should send up additional warning flags.

Based upon DU posting content, one's level of outrage about the NSA is inversely correlative to one's desire to shield the President from criticism.

[Indi Guy]

59. You say, "Anger is only appropriate when some egregious abuse has occurred."...

...and you've arbitrarily decided that there is none here. Well, I'm happy for you that you can calmly rest in the idea that the NSA's abuses of law are nothing to be bothered about.

The certain knowledge that absolute power corrupts absolutely does not afford me the luxury of blissfully dismissing my concerns here.

[randome]

60. It's not arbitrary, it's just my opinion. Take it for what you will.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

56. +1000000

[JoePhilly]

62. 1140 7 26

[jsr]

72. @#$% Amen.

[Paolo123]

3. Yeah right

I doubt that the President could even go against the NSA without having all of his personal life leaked.

[Wilms]

4. "I'll be proposing some self-restraint on the NSA..."

[Eleanors38]

12. The 3rd "some:" referencing who? Why the off-hand coyness?

[Titonwan]

32. "but we will still be

collecting data from you all for the dossiers we need should you ever expose embarrassing things about the government."

[City Lights]

6. Don't count on it, Mr. President. nt

[SpcMnky]

8. Well, according to the official documents leaked, they are spying on everyone, including Americans.

Yet, everyone pretends that that elephant is not in the room already.

They must take us all for saps.

:shakes-head:

[SidDithers]

78. So, does the US government owe us 3 trillion?...nt

Sid

[SpcMnky]

79. at least

[SidDithers]

80. Welcome back...nt

Sid

[Eleanors38]

9. Perhaps, but what kind of confidence? I am unfortunately quite confident.

"...some...some...some..." 3 layers of 5 a.m. fog.

[olddad56]

11. the NSA should start a missing person locating service, since they are know where everyone who texts

at almost any time. Or they could be useful and help locate lost or stolen smart phones. Or maybe even become and ISP and compete with Comcast and AT&T.

[RC]

13. The NSA is too busy spying and collecting black Mail information, to be of any use to find missing

people, or even actual terrorists, bad guys and things like that.

J. Edgar Hoover would love this outfit.

[ronnie624]

15. That's my opinion, too.

The surveillance of US citizens and the creation of a vast, search-able database of personal information on practically everyone, would be extremely useful as a tool for controlling the population and thwarting reform to our government, the real threat to our current power structure, which is obviously geared to benefit the rich and powerful more than anyone else. The actual physical threat from terrorism simply does not merit the vast effort and expense behind the "war on terror", nor does it rationalize the dismantling of our democracy. If we used the resources squandered on the Global War on Terror™, to make sure everyone's basic needs were met and to develop technologies to aid in securing our civilization's long-term survival, I think we would see a dramatic reduction in the threats of terrorism against the United States.

[Amonester]

17. The "dismantling of our democracy" already happened a long time ago, long before Obama was first

elected.

Where have you been if you think "our democracy" is still in existence?

Capitalist Corporations (the 1%) rule everything.

[ronnie624]

18. I Agree.

Just hoping it isn't unrecoverable, that's all.

[Amonester]

19. At this point, or if not, coming very soon, this entire little planet

is, or will be, unrecoverable (for humans, that is).

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Which came first:

Their Agenda?

Or 9/11?

[Psephos]

21. All excellent points. n/t

[L0oniX]

40. ^^^^this^^^^

"If we used the resources squandered on the Global War on Terror™, to make sure everyone's basic needs were met and to develop technologies to aid in securing our civilization's long-term survival, I think we would see a dramatic reduction in the threats of terrorism against the United States."

Can you imagine what good could be done with half of the yearly US military budget.

[woo me with science]

58. Two reasons for this monstrous surveillance state:

1. Total information awareness for PROFIT.

and

2. A surveillance database on every citizen to prevent resistance from those being exploited for PROFIT.

[Pholus]

31. Their data is demonstrably more useful for "after the fact" stuff.

Considering how few of those touted "54 thwarted plots" this summer actually were plots, and actually involved heading off action, and actually uniquely involved NSA data...

No, this stuff is a library resource for researching people.

Rolling up a terror network after the strike for one, sure I guess.

But the obvious killer app of all this data is being able to get leverage over any person, any where, any time.

[L0oniX]

38. Hilter would have loved an NSA and DHS. Why do you hate America?

[FiveGoodMen]

70. Hitler would have loved EVERYTHING our government is doing today.

Apparently the Thousand Year Reich is still going to happen.

[Indi Guy]

14. You can buy back some "re-purposed" phones...

[JoeyT]

16. "contents of their phone calls" is important.

A weasel phrase. We're not listening to the contents. We're just logging everyone you ever speak to about anything. Then if anyone you spoke to spoke to someone that spoke to someone that we think is suspicious for whatever reason (Like being a member of any group unhappy with the status quo. Or at least a group on the left that's unhappy with the status quo.) then we'll listen to your phone calls.

LOL self-restraint. Right. If they had self-restraint, they'd have already used it.

[blackspade]

20. Uh. No.

not buying it.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. I feel better already

[blkmusclmachine]

23. More mealy mouthed than usual.

[ZM90]

27. Fuck the NSA. You reading this Agent Mike?

Yeah I know you're not happy with me but there's this little thing called the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Perhaps you people at the NSA need to be educated on it. Here let me educate you all. The text of the 4th Amendment reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That says what the NSA is doing is illegal. The entire NSA needs to be dismantled and all who participated in the illegal spying in orange jumpsuits.

[Pholus]

28. I propose ALL laws be transformed into "proposals for some self-restraint."

"I'm sorry officer, I know this was my third murder this month but I could have killed 12 people -- plainly I am showing some self-restraint here."

[Titonwan]

30. Very funny! n/t

[Titonwan]

29. Sheesh...

... and this is the president who stepped up drone killings, U.S. citizen assassination, prosecutor of whistle blowers and user of the 1917 Espionage Act more than all the previous presidents combined?
Oh yes, I believe every word

[fredamae]

33. "More Confidence"? lol

Too late. Trust in govt is all but disappeared and it's gonna take More than words and a Lot of time to Prove action based upon those words, at this juncture.

[Dash87]

35. 'We plan to put out more fake polls saying Americans like us' - NSA

[L0oniX]

37. The NSA are people too!

[jsr]

73. Hey, they provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors

"I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable."

[MisterP]

76. the only alternative to ObamaDoesntSpy is TOTAL ELIMINATION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

DO YOU WANT THAT YOU GOP PLANT?!

[winter is coming]

41. The stupid, it burns. n/t

[idwiyo]

43. HA HA HA HA HA! Does he think everyone is total moron?

[darkangel218]

51. I demand ice cream and Coors lite for the privelage of spying on moi.

[minivan2]

57. Shouldn't we at least wait and see what the details of the reforms are?

Then if they don't do much we could start attacking the president.

[burnsei sensei]

66. I have great confidence that the NSA will violate the privacy of communications,

regardless of any imperatives of "self-restraint."
When you have the powers they have, there is no self-restraint. They are Macbeth and his lady in collective form.
Even you, Mr. President, are not safe from them.

[Th1onein]

67. THIS IS A DECEPTION.

"The NSA actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people's emails, not listening to ... the contents of their phone calls,"

Yeah, they do a good job of not reading people's emails and listening to their phone calls, but they are COLLECTING the content in a DOSSIER on every single one of us. And they can read your emails and listen to the content of your phone calls, at will.

Imagine you say something or do something, to piss off the corporate owners of our government. Say you run for office. Everything they have collected on you is there, ready to be used against you, at the twitch of a finger. Eliot Spitzer is a prime example of this.

Puh-leaze, Mr. President, don't go there; don't try to pacify me. The NSA is spying on Americans in a wholesale fashion, and you know it, and we know it. It's not about confidence, sir. It's about the law, and they're breaking it, and you're facilitating them.

[woo me with science]

68. Thank you.

[Incitatus]

69. Exactly

Lots of information to use for character assassination of anyone they do not like or blackmail politicians, judges, or whoever they need to.

[hootinholler]

71. These are the actions he should take

This does not mean we should stop pushing for better disclosure and to outlaw the caching of data and calls.

[Indi Guy]

74. "proposing some self-restraint on the NSA"

Do you think that this is in any way a viable part of a solution? ...which points to the larger issues of trust and credibility. Do you trust in your government's willingness and/or ability to reign in this orgy of unconstitutional snooping?

[hootinholler]

75. When you ask "in any way a part of a viable solution"

The answer has to be yes, it is a very small part of a viable solution. The thing is, that I'm not sure that the Congress and the Executive can provide a viable solution. Until there's oversight that will jail the spooks when they rape the constitution or sandbag the President we won't have an entirely viable solution.

[BelgianMadCow]

77. The 96 % of the world that are "foreigners" are happy to learn

that we don't matter.

The arrogance...

[Ash_F]

81. Reforms? Will they stop stalking women?

Or they going to let that slide because...you know...the heart wants what the heart wants.

12 True Tales of Creepy NSA Cyberstalking
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-stalking/

[NuttyFluffers]

82. self-restraint = trust me, i won't blackmail you with it, yet

should have exercised that self-restraint before you continued the collection of EVERYTHING, too. but you broke our trust then, so shame on me if i trust you again.