Obama administration wishes to build on Bush's record on destroying privacy

[MadHound]

"WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone"

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&hp>

We didn't condone this sort of shit under Bush, so why should we condone it under Obama?

Not only will this allow the administration to tap into our online communication, but it would drive small providers out of business, since the costs of compliance with this would bankrupt them.

This is another day when the question about this administration becomes: What change?

[ixion]

1. It is uncondonable under ANY admin, Bush, Obama or otherwise

And the primary reason why I am SO disappointed/disgusted with Obama.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. K&R

[golddigger]

3. Change that matters...lol, it's all a bunch of BS.

[wildbilln864]

12. Sadly you are right!

Must have meant change as in from bad to worse. :banghead:

[Individualist]

19. +1

[speppin]

4. We better hope Feingold

gets re-elected. He fights for us on these issues.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1285592654-s1+s7lDFWMXPBeFv8DADQQ
...........
The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”
................


There is not yet agreement on important elements, like how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, like Research in Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service. ..............

[TBF]

11. Al Franken has been active as well.

http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality

[Odin2005]

5. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

[madokie]

6. One thing about it

I can see who doesn't like Obama around here. ;-)

[TBF]

9. The more important lesson is to read WHY he is being

questioned.

[madokie]

14. No one is perfect

I'll let it rest at that

[TBF]

15. I'll accept that excuse for the guy who mows the lawn.

For someone who is in charge of running the country I'm going to have higher expectations.

[Individualist]

20. I'm sure you said that when the chimperor was trashing civil liberties.

:sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

7. Moreover, do we want the next REPUBLICAN President to have these powers??

[BlueCheese]

22. People always forget...

... that somebody else gets to wear the ring next.

[Catherina]

8. His pre-election FISA betrayal was a clear warning.

Since then it's all been downhill. I'm so disgusted that I can't believe I ever supported him.

[TBF]

10. I remember writing about FISA at the time -

it was one of the first things that made me question his sincerity. I worked on the primary here in Texas, but started to have questions when I saw him come to town and dine with the ritziest oil execs in the best suburbs ...

There were many warning signs but I guess after Bush we were so desperate to get someone who even sounded half-way progressive. And now his DOJ is raiding peace activists' homes. *sigh*

[speppin]

13. I recall that. And at the time he make a statement and said he would "fix"

it when he was President. But by all accounts I have read, he and the DOJ just made it worse. And now this!!x(

[TBF]

16. Yeah, his "fix" is very telling. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. +1!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. How, exactly, does this destroy privacy?

[defendandprotect]

21. What change, indeed? Is this what we elected a Democrat to do ????? NO!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. I'll have to see the actual legislation before passing judgement

However, laws do occasionally need to change with the technology, particularly with telecommunications being a rapidly changing and expanding area. Also, it should be pointed out that nobody is alleging that President Obama is already doing this and/or that he is doing something that the laws don't already allow. The major problem that I think that most of us had with Buscho is that they were doing a lot of things ILLEGALLY and without any prior legal authority AND they demanded (and, unfortunately, received) retroactive immunity for themselves and the telcos when the knowledge that they were acting outside of the law finally came to light. If the law needs to be changed to adjust for current technology and they can demonstrate that they can adequately safeguard civil liberties in the process, then what is the problem? There's a difference IMHO between a POTUS going to Congress and asking that the law be changed and have Congress debate it than simply plowing ahead and doing whatever they want to do without any kind of legal authority to do so. :shrug: