General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAl Gore calls Obama administration’s collection of phone records ‘obscenely outrageous’
Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore on Wednesday night leveled some rare and harsh criticism at the Obama administration, attacking its reported collection of phone records for millions of Americans.
The Guardians Glenn Greenwald reported Wednesday evening that the National Security Agency has used a secret court order issued in April to collect the records of all phone calls made on the Verizon network.
Gore took to Twitter to call the monitoring obscenely outrageous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/05/al-gore-calls-obama-administrations-collection-of-phone-records-obscenely-outrageous/?wprss=rss_politics
https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=algore&tw_i=342455655057211393&tw_p=tweetembed
Al Gore @algore
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?
babylonsister
(171,104 posts)a tweet doesn't work for me. Tell me why you feel the way you do. Explain your opinion, because we all have them. Thanks, Al!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)This is tyranny.
babylonsister
(171,104 posts)Gore's tweet.
And Greenwald.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Response to babylonsister (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pam4water
(2,916 posts)NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)I want to see how this is excused by the apologists.
Obama's MO is to say one thing on the campaign trail and then do the opposite when the rubber meets the road:
Healthcare-said individual mandate was stupid
Telecom Immunity-Said he would filibuster FISA update that included Telecom immunity
Ending War in Iraq-Tried to negotiate troops staying in Iraq (but FAILED)
etc.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)tells whomever what they want to hear at that point in time. Then, switches for the next ... and tells them what they want to hear. ... but exactly as you say, the apologists will come up with all of the excuses and rationale that it's perfectly fine.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Today I saw a list of Liberal journalists and bloggers including people like Amy Goodman, right here on DU, being tossed as a 'rat pack that doesn't deserve the time of day'.
xocet
(3,873 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)pam4water
(2,916 posts)the as they will go.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)surveillance by TPTB, but a transparent gov. to "we the people?" Somehow, that got forgotten, and we the people got fucked over again. All the time I grow more and more wary of WTF is going on ... but the die hearts will exclaim, "ain't this great." Exactly as you said ... "This is tyranny." ... but many Americans remain docile lemmings and guppies, bred to follow whatever ... and to be cheerleaders.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It is so much easier to just relax and drink the cool-aide.
Fascism is painless, it takes on many changes
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)looks of 'you are unAmerican' by the 'deer in the headlight' crowd, the DUH's and those who are perpetually clueless. And often I think that accounts for about half of Americans ... Many just do not look at the big picture.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,862 posts)Hillary in 2016! Michelle in 2024! Chelsea in 2032! Malia in 2040!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)fall4anything.
choie
(4,111 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)show any return to citizen privacy, but rather a continuing degradation of privacy. If one takes all of the labels of D, R and I away, the track record is less and less privacy in the big picture, at least to me. I find it all quite spooky. Many citizens are being put through a net as enemies or potential enemies of the state. I do wonder WTF is going on ... by default, one is considered suspicious ... potentially guilty of something?
... maybe there is a reason for all of this ...
midnight
(26,624 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)all of this surveillance, cloak and dagger, is great. I'm sure some do, but I'm fed up with the line, well it's keeping us safer.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)violate the Constitution. His predecessor went to a lot of trouble to set the precedence. Some of us were hoping, maybe naively, that a Democratic president would set things right. Were we stupid. Pres Obama took the extraordinary powers and ran with them.
American Revolution II is waiting for the spark.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I fail to see how this is something he can do by himself
babylonsister
(171,104 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)I get in trouble all the time
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'd like to see what higher courts say about things like this, before declaring them legal even under current law.
progressoid
(50,008 posts)He could just say, "this is bad policy and my administration won't do it".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)East Germany was less intrusive.
This is utterly shameful.
The Obama administration is wrong on this, and Obama could stop it with a telephone call or a memo.
How could it be possible that all who use the Verizon network are suspected of illegal activity.
We need to change the laws on this. I hope this will be a campaign issue in 2014. I think a lot of Democratic legislators should answer for their votes on the issue -- or lack of votes and lack of action on the issue.
Congress could stop this. Obama could stop this. On this one either could put an end to a repressive, intrusive practice that should be illegal.
And, in addition, that much eavesdropping is a terrible waste of money. Does the administration really need to listen in on my calls to my elderly mother? I don't think so.
George Gently
(88 posts)for the next Republican President to exercise the power.
As a general principle, I object to Republican Presidents having more power than Democratic Presidents.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)So solve the problem by having Democrats violate more laws?
OK
George Gently
(88 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There is no excuse for Obama's administration indiscriminately snooping on us. That is what the communists and the Fascists and the NAZIs did. Our government should not be doing that to us. This violates not only our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, our Fifth Amendment right to remain silent but our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion and assembly.
And in addition, it is a waste of money and that is a big problem in addition to the fact that it is oppressive.
Obama should publicize the details, how it is done and who is doing it and then end it and ask Congress to end it. I have a very hard time believing that terrorism is that huge a problem in the US.
Insane people killing people is a much bigger problem.
George Gently
(88 posts)And all of this pearl-clutching and lip-biting as if this were some sort of breaking news is a bit silly:
"Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
July 2, 2008
Senator Barack Obamas decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administrations program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=0"
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The money and energy should be focused on potential terrorists, not on the mass of good citizens. What a waste. What an intrusion.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)people should see that if nothing else....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We don't even think about that very much. They aren't listening in on the actual calls as I understand it but rather getting the registers of who everyone calls. It's freedom of association that is at risk here.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)with this technology, don't they have the ability to listen in when they want to, ie. when they see patterns and whatnot, without any sort of outside authority?
I take your point about freedom of association.
Welcome to China. Did we ever think we'd see that degree of surveillance here?
George Gently
(88 posts)"As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.
"This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress."
Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the program was used in the last few years to stop a terrorist attack in the United States. He gave no details, but said the program operates under rigorous judicial and congressional oversight.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/politics/nsa-verizon-records/index.html
Not sure how our freedom to associate became chilled or at risk only within the past few days.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues."
George Gently
(88 posts)"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.
Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.
The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)in the UK or here.
Here is a good essay from the Washington University School of Law in 2012. This one talks about the "chill" on discussion of political and social issues--ie. the way that societies censor themselves when there is too much surveillance.
I read this whole essay in a short time--it is so well written and clear. I urge everyone to click on the link to the PDF and read this now, and send it to others. It will give you an overview of the issues in a very readable format:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf
"The Dangers of Surveillance" by Neil Richards
Excerpt:
"Existing attempts to define the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they have generally failed to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this essay, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of surveillance studies, I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.
At the level of theory, I will explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, and because it gives the watcher power over the watched. In terms of civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about their political and social beliefs. Such intellectual surveillance is particularly dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called intellectual privacy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)he'd be the most transparent ever, at length, in detail and as if he meant it? I sure do. Biggest of the many broken and disregarded promises this man made.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the government knowing that we are communicating is placed in question. Knowing that the government is snooping on who we all or when may cause some people to think twice before calling some of their friends or relatives regardless what they are calling about. That is "chilling" our right to associate, possibly our freedom of assembly as it could cause some people to think twice before planning via internet or telephone to hold a meeting. If you stop to think about the fact that your phone call records may be monitored and therefore choose not to call someone, your right to associate with others has been chilled. That won't happen to everyone every day, but it will happen.
Fortunately, I am retired and don't have to fear that what I write on the internet or who I call could jeopardize my job. But some may fear that. Especially some who work for the government. That is chilling speech. If someone cannot speak freely or communicate freely because they fear that the government is listening in, reading e-mails or looking over their phone records, that person's right to free speech has been chilled.
And the rights of the news reporters whose records were reviewed, regardless of their network or publication affiliation, to freedom of the press and free association and free speech were chilled by the fact that they were under government surveillance.
For shame on the Obama administration.
frylock
(34,825 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pesky principles.
George Gently
(88 posts)And I do not approve of these manufactured tea lady scandals.
The Chairman of the HOUSE Intelligence Committee says that this program has foiled a terrorist attack in the United States.
Imagine if Obama Had CHOSEN not to use the program and the attack occurred.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)maybe our democratic president ought to start a massive war in some country based on nothing but lies. I mean hell, we can't have our guy be less powerful than Bush.
George Gently
(88 posts)Obama campaigned on stepping up the war in Afghanistan.
Does he/did he have the authority to do it?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it is congresses power to declare war. Congress needs to take that power back. With the amount of cooperation that goes on in congress, this would guarantee we wouldn't be getting into another one for a while.
George Gently
(88 posts)Do you suspect that there's a reason Congress hasn't declared a war since the UN was formed?
Or why the Iraq War, despite that Congressional resolution, is still referred to as Bush's illegal war and a war crime?
Yet Afghanistan is not "Bush's illegal war?"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)George Gently
(88 posts)Aside from your rhetoric.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Unfortunately they include things that are worse than GWB.
What's wrong with him saying "no" and asking for bills to be passed to re-limit his powers?
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm not surprised that he can't.
I can control what I read here on DU though if you get my drift
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)as well as I recall ... when he took office, he was amazed at all of the levers of power (meaning, I think, people don't realize how pulled a president is in many directions ... not having as much power as some think.)
The other was, ... he was amazed at how one has to get in front of everything to get the right perception out to the people (meaning, I think, he has to remember to get ahead of events and not after the fact.)
madokie
(51,076 posts)I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm smart enough to know that a lot of the shit he piled on him by many here and else where is beyond his control. There is only so much one person can do even if they happen to be the POTUS. The fact is he is being President without many of his choices in our government and I think he is doing a pretty damn good job in spite of all this.
Its not Obama's fault that the pukes make the senate have to have a super majority for any and all business. He can't help that he has to play with the hand he is dealt. Well I guess its his fault for being a democrat who won with a huge majority of the votes and that he's Black. I like that he busted the old white mans club that had a lock on the presidency since day one. I'm hoping a woman is our next President so the rest of their old white asses heads will explode.
I'm an old mostly white man myself.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I'm sure there are a lot of people here who would gladly provide you with a tool sharpener. You can sharpen that tool by reading the many links provided that will lead you to increased knowledge. Knowledge is power.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)This was the executive branch action. This appears to go well beyond even the Patriot Act both in scope and the fact it does not have the imprimatur of congress.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)would have modified the Patriot Act. And he could have refused to sign extensions without at least some modifications. But once we gave the president the power of the Patriot Act it's impossible to get back into the bottle.
He still has options. I dont buy the "Pres Obama is totally powerless to do anything" argument.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)they never cede in- at least in modern times.
Ter
(4,281 posts)I proudly voted for him in 2008, and got talked into it in 2012 by DU, even though he has been terrible on liberty and drones. In 2016, I promise you this, I won't vote for anyone who supports the Patriot Act, drones, or the NDAA.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Certainly he's done some good things, but I see no way to reconcile some of his actions in the areas of individual privacy, the drone programs, trashing the IRS and many other things. With each passing day, it looks a lot less like 3-dimensional chess and more like selling out to the right-wing machine that controls everything anyway.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)and more like we're screwed either way lately.
I'm starting to think it's time for a general strike and a shutdown of everything until all this enrich the few at our expense shit stops and the STEALING of our liberties stops or it comes to a head and people revolt
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)about $$$$$. If any in the masses think TPTB of any of these parties are just like them, they need to reevaluate their logic and input. They are not. It is, today, all about as you said, "enrich the few at our expense." All of this shit is still continuing, often I see little difference between D, R and I when it comes to $$$$$.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I've never seen anybody choose his battles more selectively. His ethic seems to be, "If I can't win on this, I'll be content to hide on the sidelines and maybe do something really small at the margins with the hope that somewhere down the road there will be a better chance to make real change." But then even when he does engage in a fight, such as on the gun legislation, he doesn't really fight for it. He isn't ever willing to play any hardball. How many bills has he vetoed?
This guy just does not like confrontation. That's the charitable assessment. The only other possible explanation is that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing all along.
We're stuck with 3 more years of that. Looking ahead, do we see any candidates on the horizon who would be a bit tougher -- a bit more like LBJ or FDR? The ones I have heard discussed so far would be no better than Obama, IMHO.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)CrispyQ
(36,547 posts)Oh, sure, a few liberals will be allowed to run, but dem leadership will see that the big contributions go to the 2-3 corporate candidates. Their pals in the media will make certain to minimize or ridicule any liberal voices. It's all a charade to maintain the status quo, while making the proles feel like they have a voice in government.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It is an interesting question Mr. Fish presents. His art is always challenging.
But for me, it really isn't a question of whether the President is well-liked or not. The more basic questions are a) what are his real values, and b) does he have any values he will actually fight for?
You see, being a well-liked President does give him what W frequently and awkwardly referred to as "political capital". People want strong leaders, even if they don't like them. And if a person is a strong leader that is well-likes, that President can do a lot more than might be implied by a clinical reading of the Constitution. Reagan is the prime example of this.
Maybe Obama's problem is that he studied the Constitution too much. For whatever reason, he appears completely unwilling to use any of that "political capital". God only knows what he is waiting for.
------
And this is exactly why we have this false choice between the ultra-authoritarian whom nobody likes and the ultra-authoritarian who is well-liked. It is not because the public is stupid. It is because the people are not permitted any opportunity to discuss the real issues.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)the former TPTB. If, we are under some threat that millions and millions of Americans are under surveillance, I would think some vague explanation might be needed. On the flip side, maybe there is some extremely major threat going on.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)as Bush is LOL, people are suffering. Nice try, but the Democratic folks are is trying to clean up W's laugh.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)gulliver
(13,197 posts)I don't like it, but it's the law. If we don't like it, change the law. I read Gore's comment that way. I don't see him saying "Obama administration" in this tweet. I hate when "reporters" add helpful interpretations like this, especially "reporters" who reference Glenn Greenwald as if he were a reporter.
Oh, and isn't the outgoing NSA guy a Bush guy?
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Just because one can stretch the law to request an order and find a judge willing to sign off on it doesn't mean that the government is obligated to do so.
He could renounce such power, and lobby to have them repealed, rather than exploiting them, in secret, no less.
RILib
(862 posts)Why he does not is left as an exercise to the reader. Hint: he approves of their doing it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)We do have a law that covers that already, its called the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately this administration as well as the previous and the courts don't give a shit about protecting it.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Any activity within the government during an administration is referred to as activity of that administration by name. This is the Obama administration's FBI.
And how exactly is Glenn Greenwald not a reporter?
He was given a tip. It was published by a well-regarded daily newspaper in their World News section. He reported it for a news organization for which he writes a column. Many important news stories have appeared in the work of columnists.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Obama's retention of Bush acolytes continues to bite him in the you-know-what.
Gee that's funny the non-reporter guy just had a major scoop. lol
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Did they really just take the phone records of everyone who uses Verizon? That must be close to 100 million people or so. Why on earth would they need to do that?
CrispyQ
(36,547 posts)At some point, there is so much data, that they will have difficulty finding anything of value, unless they know exactly what they are looking for. In that case, they could have just gotten a warrant. IMO, TPTB are putting policies in place now, so that when the proles start to revolt, they can clamp down. We don't have a real economy anymore; we go from one bubble to the next & it's the 99% that always gets hit the worst when the bubble pops. We're approaching 400ppm & even though TPTB pay for studies that question climate change, they are smart enough themselves to know it's coming. I think we are in for some incredible social unrest on a global scale. I may not see it in my lifetime, but it's coming. Things are too out of balance.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Have we had enough yet?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)exploding. Then I flashed on Lewis Black's trademark expression of
Mz Pip
(27,454 posts)Why Verizon? Why not AT&T?
What's the point of all this? It just seems like you'd just end up with piles and piles of mostly irrelevant data to sort through. Seems like a huge waste of time and resources.
progressoid
(50,008 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)can sort mighty quick. I'm sure they're sorting on political activity as well. Hell, there are probably feds in there looking up their spouse's activity.
hugo_from_TN
(1,069 posts)It's just that no one has leaked those orders (yet).
toddaa
(2,518 posts)That was a good one. LOL
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)No Al, it's not just you. The secret blanket surveillance IS obscenely outrageous and so is due process free assassinations and a lot of other things.
Hat tip to Greenwald for this HUGE SCOOP.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)While Man Bear Pig is on the loose. "I'm cereal"
<a href="http://imgur.com/Eg5tMEj"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)up arms to line the profiteers pockets with $$$$$ and those then dead or returning from war mutilated and in many cases returnees abandoned by those that sent them by fanning the flames of patriotism.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)And people are still working really hard not to believe them.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Just another right wing troll, that Gore.
RILib
(862 posts)this is right up there with the worse.
I'm reminded of the lunatics who during the campaign were going on about his being a secret Muslim plant. Now I'm thinking he's a secret right wing nut plant, despite how most of us have been trying to make excuses for him.
Once you destroy the individual Constitutional freedoms of a people, you have nothing left of a country.
This is impeachment territory.
We didn't impeach Bush for it.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)First, the records include only phone numbers. No one is recording conversations, much to the dismay of many who want to compare this to 'East Germany' and 'tyranny'.
Second, Verizon already has this information and do you think they don't already make use of it in some way?
Third, the record requests expire next month.
Fourth, why only Verizon? There must have been a reason they didn't get records from all the other carriers.
I'm curious about the rationale behind this but I don't see the need to run around with our heads on fire.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)this was done, so we have visceral reactions including myself. Maybe there was/is some type of major threat. i'm curious why only Verizon. ... maybe they already have data from the other carriers.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'm pretty sure all the other companies got them as well.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)How much do you want to bet that every telecom and every U.S. citizen is affected.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I'm sure it's not only Verizon.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)When people feel the need to characterize any discussion as 'heads on fire' and that sort of stupid phraseology you know they are selling something they don't know how to sell. 'You got to chill, your head's on fire, what does Gore know about government, listen to meeeeeeeeee'.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:48 AM - Edit history (1)
with Shrub, and that was the apparatus that brought us here today .
QC
(26,371 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)for being the voice of reason.
randome
(34,845 posts)And he wasn't much of a voice of reason for Elian Gonzalez.
Maybe this is a big deal, maybe it's not. But I wouldn't build a conclusion based on a Tweet by Al Gore.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)He should be ashamed.
Regards,
TWM
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)the number of American lives needlessly lost by reason of the Congress failing to pass effective gun control measures. The dichotomy is sicken-ly ludicrous imo.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Gore didn't single out the Obama Administration in his tweet, but the WaPo takes the liberty of putting those words into his proverbial mouth.
I guarantee this crap has been going on since long before Obama was elected, and I guarantee Gore is well aware of this fact.
The Bush Admin just didn't get 'caught', I'm sure in no small part because he purged the Executive Branch and replaced the whole thing with yes-men, and he didn't install opposition-party members into important positions like BO has done repeatedly.
However, I will say ... this reminds me of why I desperately wanted Gore to run for President back in 2008, so I could vote for him. Although I will also say ... I rather doubt he'd have 'shut down' this kind of activity either if he was President.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Who can do anything about it?
VOTING WILL NOT WORK
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But since the media fell in love with Palin they consider a Tweet to be the same thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hippie? Red? Pinko?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that was earlier made with a "backdoor" for the government to break the encryption and be able to spy on data going through encrypted communications through this chip. I recall a quote from him way back when (when the telecomm bill and telecommunications decency act was passed) that said something to the effect that "if you knew what I know of things going on" as a rationale to allow for government to spy on us then.
I wonder in context of his comments today, what he feels has changed, or if he feels that what is going on is far more intrusive and worse than what they were trying to do then.
Wish I could find the earlier quote I remember seeing at the time way back then. It seemed like only a few senators including Feingold, McCain, and Pat Leahy were standing up against the problematic parts of the telecomm act and this legislation then.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)tavernier
(12,410 posts)Honey, call the government , ask 'em if I've got any messages.
I laughed but it made me think: if they are going to be on my phone, at least they could make themselves useful and take messages, lol
newmember
(805 posts)Celldweller
(186 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Mr. Gore?
Response to cal04 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)TeamPooka
(24,279 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)he just wasn't *selected*. The USSC made sure of that
Demonaut
(8,934 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)he fought damned hard for over a month. what the fuck was he supposed to do beyond what he did. do tell and give specifics.
Demonaut
(8,934 posts)but he did concede early before retracting
Response to Demonaut (Reply #137)
Demonaut This message was self-deleted by its author.