Pres. Obama Remarks on Intelligence Programs [video]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Pres-Obama-Remarks-on-Intelligence-Programs/10737443584-1/

by sinak • 13 years ago

102 115 13 years ago

sinak• 13 years ago

Read the Presidential Policy Directive PPD-28 on Signals Intelligence activities with details on the reforms here: http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf

001sky• 13 years ago

Live commentary also here

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/live-coverage-...

swombat• 13 years ago

All of it so far is empty and pointless doublespeak. For example:

President Obama is announcing that he wants to end the National Security Agency’s bulk call records program as it currently exists.

Why, of course, "as it currently exists" it has a lot of problems. I'm sure the current version can be "ended" and a much more insidious version can be designed.

As of the 11:47 update there is nothing of note in there.

Zikes• 13 years ago

Certainly, "as it currently exists" it is known to the public.

The new program will be far more secretive.

dictum4• 13 years ago

Mr. Obama started off by saying the government could not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating foreign networks — and protecting against them.

By the logic that arrives to this conclusion, the government can not protect against terrorists and cyber threats without penetrating domestic networks either.

mpyne14• 13 years ago

To an approximate degree, yes, except that penetration of domestic networks would not be necessary, merely the normal legal processes from CALEA, MOUs with telecom companies, etc.

The government already does this kind of stuff, only through the FBI instead of the NSA.

You would "penetrate" a foreign network when there is no ability to expect cooperation and no ability to compel.

netcraft2• 13 years ago

The President is still speaking so I don't know what he is going to announce, but as an american, I don't like the concept of citizens and non-citizens being treated differently when it comes to their rights. The distinction is difficult to make anyway, but the declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and does not make a distinction - I don't think we should be able to spy on someone in another country without a warrant any more than we can spy on citizen.

philwelch3• 13 years ago

It's not a question of rights. Every country engages in foreign espionage and treats foreign espionage as a different category of activity from domestic espionage.

Things are slightly different when you're spying on private citizens rather than just foreign governments, but then again the whole point of terrorism is that it involves private citizens instead of governments.

zorked• 13 years ago

Are "foreign espionage" and "mass surveillance" the same thing? I am more willing to accept the former as unfortunately unavoidable than the latter.

arrrg2• 13 years ago

That doesn't really answer why it's not a question of rights. Everyone else doing it is not really a valid argument that counters rights.

pekk4• 13 years ago

This concept is international and it is not new. It's really puzzling why Obama is specifically singled out for criticism about this general principle.

netcraft2• 13 years ago

I don't intend to single him out - I had the same concern when Bush was president, and one of the biggest and most selfish reason I have this opinion is because I don't want other countries to spy on my any more than I want my own to spy on me. I direct this criticism at my government, not the President. And I think this should apply to lots of things, not just surveillance.

eric_cc3• 13 years ago

You are entitled to your opinion and I do not entirely disagree. However, I do believe that the US should not be the only powerful nation that does not engage in foreign spying. That puts us at a disadvantage in today's world.

Other countries are spying on the US and the US is spying on other countries - that's the state of things right now. Let's not pretend the US is doing something other nations are not.

linuxhansl2• 13 years ago

There is a difference between targeting spying and collecting data indiscriminately just because it happens to be routed through a server within US jurisdiction.

Asparagirl• 13 years ago

"When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I the Lord am your God." (Parasha Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:33-34)

alexeisadeski32• 13 years ago

Non citizens living and visiting the US have the same protections as US citizens. US citizens only get special protection when outside of the country; the NSA still isn't really supposed to spy on them then, though technically and legally they probably could.

garrettgrimsley2• 13 years ago

Rather than relying on a religious text we can reference rulings, like Boumediene v. Bush[1] and and the US constitution. This article by Greenwald[2] neatly examines the whether constitution protections apply to foreigners.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

[2] http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/

I'm not naive enough to believe that any regime would show restraint as a result of the existence of these rulings, but hey, they exist.

srl5• 13 years ago

While that's a nice sentiment in principle, it falls apart in fairly obvious ways. Do we enforce our laws on citizens of other nations? When other governments act in ways inconsistent with our constitution, do you think we should use our military to force them to do otherwise (as we have done with our own states)? Of course not.

Our government's first responsibility is to the security and liberties of its citizens and (legal[1]) residents. As much as possible, I'd want it to protect those in ways that also help the security and liberties of those in other parts of the world, but those are not equal obligations.

In any case, being spied on by a foreign country is considerably less bad than being spied on by your own. In the wet dreams of conspiracy theorists, our government spies on its citizens to discover their political views, and then imprisons those with views it doesn't like. There's no equivalent evil that France's government could pull off.

[1] In my view, "legal" shouldn't need to be there, but that's not very realistic.

dictum4• 13 years ago

In any case, being spied on by a foreign country is considerably less bad than being spied on by your own. In the wet dreams of conspiracy theorists, our government spies on its citizens to discover their political views, and then imprisons those with views it doesn't like. There's no equivalent evil that France's government could pull off.

Arresting you when you have to enter France for business or personal reasons is one possibility.

EDIT: If France has some agents in your country there's a lot of evil they could pull off even without you leaving the country.

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

In my view, the "right" policy is that we will respect the rights of all people, but not guarantee that we will protect the rights of anyone but our own.

andrewcooke• 13 years ago

other countries don't seem to have the same attitude that america has.

in general terms, in most places, the law is applies equally to everyone in the country[+].

in contrast, in the usa, many things apparently depend on whether you are a citizen or not.

those are quite different approaches. both can be made to work (neither "falls apart"). the american one appears arbitrary and unfair to me.

[+] obviously there are exceptions - immigration, for example.

malandrew• 13 years ago

One of the biggest problems with this view though is intelligence sharing policies among nations. Even if the US can't spy on American, but the French can, you still have the possibility that some politically connected multinational organization can get information about American political adversaries through their French intelligence connections.

rayiner9• 13 years ago

The declaration of independence isn't a legal document. Treating it as such results in facial contradiction, because the Constitution embraces the idea that black slaves are not in fact equal. It's generally a good idea to just ignore the declaration of independence as what it is: idealistic rhetoric.

In any case, it's not a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but the territorial scope of the Constitution. Just as the Constitution can't create obligations that apply to say the French in France, it can't create rights that apply to them.

adestefan• 13 years ago

And then the Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States..." While the Declaration of Independence is a nice little document about why you should be able to blow up someone else, the Constitution is the one that really matters.

cma• 13 years ago

Yeah, "all men are created equal" ... except "the merciless Indian savages" Britain is keeping us from exterminating (also in the declaration).

rjzzleep2• 13 years ago

so am i getting it right? nothing is going to change. everything stays the same.

"we'll think about alternatives"

"we have unique capabilities to protect our friends"

"as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us ...."

"as a nation that has faced totalitarianism the world expects us ... "

"the readiness of certain individuals to expect the worst of our readiness to protect the world(not fully correct quote) can be frustrating"

haha wtf dude. this is more of a justification than a change notification. we'll make sure the data we collect is better accepted by you people

pekk4• 13 years ago

It's almost as if you only heard the end of the speech - and the parts of the speech you wanted to hear. Whether you think the proposed reforms are enough is up to you, but they certainly extend beyond "think about alternatives".

rjzzleep2• 13 years ago

yes, let me quote something for you

The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners and allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage

can you tell me where the change is? The document reads more of a "hey trust me, we're really the good guys"

http://sina.is/2014sigint.mem_.ppd_.rel_.pdf

care to explain where the real change is?

EDIT: since i can't reply. it's all about thinking and discussing if dissemination and retention makes sense. and reducing people that have access to it. and we may put a special person in charge to take care of these things. but that doesn't mean at&t will suddenly stop feeding data into nsa data centers.

pmtarantino• 13 years ago

as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us ....

is that true?

psbp3• 13 years ago

Is it true that he actually said something this ridiculous? Yes.

natmaster• 13 years ago

First time you heard Obama say something?

psbp3• 13 years ago

Yep, "let's move the debate forward" is code for "shut up and move along, citizen"

aeonsky• 13 years ago

Sham. Nothing is going to change.

pekk4• 13 years ago

Here is the response that HN was going to have regardless of the contents of the speech (or any realistic proposal which might have occurred).

It's about wanting to be angry and see punishments more than achieving anything specific

AmVess• 13 years ago

Perhaps is it reasonable cynicism informed by experience.

tomelders• 13 years ago

Without a pardon for Snowden, there is no discussion.

angersock• 13 years ago

That would be a pointless and empty gesture, likely wouldn't help Snowden, and would only serve to make the bastards look less slimy.

ch4s3• 13 years ago

I'm not sure I get what he's proposing to change. It sounds like he intends to limit the length of time that data is held, stop spying on friendly foreign leaders, and appoint a few people to new oversight positions. It just sounds a bit empty.

jljljl• 13 years ago

I'm not sure exactly how its going to play out, but the move to limit bulk collection of phone data, keeping the data in the hands of the phone companies or an independent third party, and requiring a justification and approval from a court before the NSA can access the data sounds like a non trivial reform. This limits the NSA's ability to just suck up everyone's data and then determine a justification after the fact.

higherpurpose3• 13 years ago

What upset me most about his speech is him conflating the issues of protection against terrorists and protection against cyber-attacks, implying that they are basically the same, and that the NSA is just as useful for both.

I won't discuss the fact that 12 years of surveillance have led to no results on stopping any terrorist plots, as the NSA has already admitted, but the NSA has actually made cyberattacks more likely because they are undermining the security of everything, including US infrastructure.

As Schneier says, it's not a question of whether we allow the NSA to spy on everyone or not. It's a question of whether we allow every attacker to spy or attack our networks - or we try to make everything more secure by default.

So when president Obama implies that NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems, he's choosing the former, rather than the latter. He's making cyberattacks more likely, not less. The way you defend against cyberattacks is by increasing security, not by increasing your offense capabilities.

If they really cared about the security of US infrastructure, they'd divulge the vulnerabilities they found or bought from the black market that exploit the security of these systems, so those systems can be fixed, and no one else can exploit them with these exploits. Instead they keep them for themselves so they can exploit them. That's not just wrong. It's incredibly dangerous and reckless, especially from an agency that supposedly wants to "protect us".

pekk4• 13 years ago

He didn't conflate terrorism and cyber-attacks, he only said that we need the capability to stop these.

He certainly never implied that "NSA should keep hoarding their vulnerabilities into systems."

Are you arguing that the US should be the only large country without intelligence or counter-intelligence programs?

97d7de9817f• 13 years ago

And you seem to be conflating dragnet surveillance with intelligence/counter-intelligence programs. Obama stated in this speech that the purpose of this type of surveillance isn't to spy on potentially hostile nations, but to spy on individuals or small networks of individuals. Torture is another great way of ousting terrorist plots which other nations incorporate into their intelligence gathering process. We choose not to do this because it is unethical and has too much potential for abuse. I see no reason to think that this same logic shouldn't be applied to the dragnet surveillance of the entire planet.

higherpurpose3• 13 years ago

They should certainly separate the US Cyber Command from the NSA. That caused a lot of the current problems. It's also what Obama's own NSA review panel recommended. Putting a big wall between the two should ensure that the powers aren't abused as much, and that the exploits are used only in most important cases, and only outside of US (NSA is still not supposed to attack US citizens, right?!).

andrethegiant• 13 years ago

12 years of surveillance have led to no results on stopping any terrorist plots, as the NSA has already admitted

Source?

vegashacker• 13 years ago

Probably impossible to verify one way or the other. May be more true to say "...have led to little evidence of stopping...". See, e.g., Schneier's article on this (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/how_the_nsa_t...), which references a summary article on what may be true about the effectiveness of the surveillance in stopping plots/attacks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/nsa-attacks-thwarte...).

MisterWebz2• 13 years ago

It's obvious he's not really taking this seriously. These are empty promises with only one goal, and that's restoring the public's trust without hampering the NSA's abilities too much (if at all).

EDIT: After having very quickly skimmed the PPD, here's something interesting:

The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners an d allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially.

Bascially what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want. Good luck trying to stop an agency operating in total secrecy from abusing these powers.

psbp3• 13 years ago

Don't have the transcript but to paraphrase the bit about NSA reform it was basically "We can set up a shell operation to do all the dirty work, we can't guarantee that it won't be even dirtier and less under congressional control, but we can definitely do that if you want us to"

harshreality2• 13 years ago

Does that mean we can sue the company and the individuals involved, for tresspassing and vandalizing equipment to enable sigint for internal corporate data? Will they be subject to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the same as everyone else? Can we catch and prosecute individuals participating in operations that involve crimes (vandalism/b&e/sabotage) by enabling sigint on corporations' servers and networking equipment? And if such individuals are armed during an occasional physical incursion into corporate infrastructure, can they be shot in self defense?

More fundamentally, let's follow the money.

Who is going to fund this corporation? If they take money from the USG, money which is then paid to corporations to persuade those corporations to give up personal data or allow network taps and collocated spying equipment, that is no different from the current situation.

mpyne14• 13 years ago

I think people forgot that the original reason there was a FISC order to turn over the phone records was because the telecom companies had already been doing it, and were quite happy to cooperate.

But they felt there would be recrimination if the fact that it was voluntary on their part came out and so requested to be ordered to do so (if that makes sense).

But you're right, at best there will be a third-party private company setup to hold the records and act as an "independent" review of the request, since none of the telecoms want to maintain the records themselves, since now that it's public it would risk discovery motions in every random case until the end of time.

And now that we would have an "independent" third party watching the NSA, who watches the watchers? At least NSA analysts are trained from Day 0 about the Constitution, USSID 18, FISA, etc. Who monitors the shell company to verify that they're not doing evil things with the database? Perhaps we could have FBI constantly monitor their comms and at least spread the risk around.

res0nat0r3• 13 years ago

Not really. He is addressing the concerns of the majority of people, not the .00001% of America that comprises HN, where the only acceptable speech would be that the NSA is being shut down tomorrow.

rayiner9• 13 years ago

I can't believe this got down-voted. This is absolutely true. To the extent that Americans have a problem with what the NSA is doing, it's with the fact that NSA's collection of phone records doesn't try hard enough to filter out information from Americans. Their opposition to this does not mean they embrace the leftist/globalist ideas that are so common on HN (e.g. foreigners should have the same rights as Americans!)

If the reform is actually just:

1) We stop spying on prominent politicians in heavily allied countries; and

2) We shut down the mass collection of call records and implement a new system that only does mass collection of international calls and traffic;

That would make the vast majority of people perfectly happy.

smokeyj• 13 years ago

Do you think Obama is appealing to non subject matter experts because they're reasonable, or ignorant?

lubujackson2• 13 years ago

Well, that's being a little flippant. I think there's plenty that could be done to improve the situation. Mainly, we need to be able to discuss whether 50,000 contractors should have full search access to all these records that are too secret to discuss with congress.

1) Congressional oversight, even if it's a special committee. NSA can't be completely outside of elected governance. There should be NO level of access that is "too classified" for this committee. If "super access" like that needs to exist in some fashion it should NOT be under the jurisdiction of the NSA. As it stands, that excuse is a loophole that undermines the concept of oversight and the NSA is way too big of an organization to have that power. Just moving "super secret" stuff to a smaller, more concentrated organization would improve things immensely.

2) Clear and open communication over access rights. The structure of which roles have what access should not be considered a secret. If this somehow weakens our security, so be it - that's the price of democracy.

3) Better access control. From what has been leaked, it's clear the NSA is putting a lot of value in security through obscurity. As we all know, this isn't a great approach. At the same time, contractors are given access to actually get stuff done. The terms of access, tracking of usage, etc. need to be discussed in a more open way because right now that's the biggest problem of the NSA.

rayiner9• 13 years ago

Basically what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want.

That's not an accurate paraphrasing. Of course when it comes to "foreign private commercial information or trade secrets" it is the sovereign right of the U.S. to "do whatever the fuck we want." The paraphrased language actually makes a concession: we will only use this information for security purposes as opposed to commercial purposes.

MisterWebz2• 13 years ago

we will only use this information for security purposes as opposed to commercial purposes.

They obviously wouldn't lie, would they? And I guess abuse also never happens.

I thought the point of this was to implement mechanisms that would make occurrence of abuse less likely, instead they're just trying to calm people down.

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

I think granting "do whatever we want to citizens of other countries when they are in their home country" as a part of sovereignty is bizarre. We are not sovereign over that territory.

nostromo2• 13 years ago

Did you know the Patriot Act sunsets next year, 2015?

Let's hope that Snowden has drummed up enough opposition to prevent it from being extended again.

srl5• 13 years ago

It will be extended, of course -- it's a cornerstone of our security establishment at this point. The more realistic thing is to hope for good amendments.

RALaBarge2• 13 years ago

If only the will of the people was a deciding factor in the vote...

rayiner9• 13 years ago

http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided... ("Among those who heard at least a lot or some about the Patriot Act, 49% see it as a necessary tool while 41% say it goes too far.").

eric_cc3• 13 years ago

Call me crazy but I think we'll see the end of war, famine, and disease before we see the end of spying and surveillance.

srl5• 13 years ago

Asking for it to end is unrealistic. Asking for reasonable limits, and for public knowledge of the general outlines of what is being collected and how it is used, and for proper oversight by the intelligence committees, is much more achievable.

higherpurpose3• 13 years ago

A summary of his proposals for those who didn't see it:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/09011025919/presid...

ck2• 13 years ago

Am I mistaken or did he completely discard all the recommendations by the security panel he appointed to give him recommendations?

kyleblarson• 13 years ago

"If you like your privacy, you can keep it."

dj-wonk• 13 years ago

To comment on just one part: "Obama said he's ordered a plan to be drafted that would shift that data to some other entity." (From http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263357572/com...)

In some sense, who collects, stores, and accesses the data is important. But it seems more important to look at the culture, rules, and oversight in place. Asking anyone to design such a system is daunting.

Let's say, for the point of argument, that specific, limited, legal, accountable collection is the primary goal and we could design a new system to accomplish that. What are some of the best designs of security protocols and entity structures to protect this information? How far can you get with correct system administration policy? I suspect you need quite a bit beyond currently available tools.

andeh89• 13 years ago

Like most of you here I'm skeptical and disappointed, but what I'm most sick of is their campaign to paint Snowden as a traitor and enemy of the people. An enemy of the government (especially one this corrupt and over-reaching) is not always an enemy of the people, and I hope history remembers Snowden as the brave individual who shone a light on this travesty and forced them into this discussion.

mpyne14• 13 years ago

He may not be the "enemy of the people", but is his the enemy of the government. Being for the people doesn't always make you right either, Robespierre believed strong in the Revolution but he and his fellow Jacobins of The Mountain were responsible for the "Reign of Terror" intended to root out counter-revolutionary sentiment "for the good of the people". As only one example, a woman was guillotined for exclaiming "a fig to the nation!".

So let's not pretend that being for the people automatically makes all of your subsequent actions right or moral.

On the other hand, the USG is the one entity chartered by "We the People of the United States", which makes me always at least initially suspicious of people whose plan is to hurt the government (which must almost invariably hurt the people, as long as the government stands).

But independent of whether Snowden is fighting the people or the government, the bigger question is whether his actions have hurt the people. In many cases they have.

Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people. Nor does leaking details about "targeted access operations" (which, since they must be targeted, cannot be used for mass surveillance essentially by definition).

I could go on and on, but the point is simply that Snowden has indeed thrown a few bones with civil liberty implications. But that's not all that he has leaked, and given that he claimed from the beginning that he was very careful in what he selected, it is proper to hold him accountable for his actions, insofar as they do end up being against the American people.

dictum4• 13 years ago

Leaking details of NSA attacks on Chinese networks doesn't help the American people.

Let me ask a facetious question: does spying on Petrobras help prevent terrorism in the US?

wavesounds• 13 years ago

"Regardless of how we got there though the task before us now is greater then simply repariing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding our civil liberties and privacy protections our constitution requires."

Regardless of how we got here?

It’s Martin Luther King day on Monday. A day named after the person that got us as a country to make ‘important decisions’ about how to ‘sustain our leadership in the world’ and ‘uphold our civil liberties’.

Mr. President we don’t disregard the individuals that make us examine our weaknesses in order to make our country better, we embrace them as heroes, even if that self reflection is uncomfortable and difficult at the time.

harshreality2• 13 years ago

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975

sneak• 13 years ago

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhower, today in 1961.

It was nice while it lasted, guys.

kartikkumar• 13 years ago

That really was single-handedly THE most boring, uninspiring speech in his entire time in office. There was nothing of substance to it and a real sense that he's not willing to fully accept the mistakes that have been made. His general nonchalance towards issues of privacy is astounding and will go a long way towards shaping how his second term in office is recounted in history books: not good!

iconjack• 13 years ago

I know he has America's best interest at heart because of all the flags. Had he just had one or two flags, I would have been skeptical. But five! And they are large ones too. Plus a lapel pin for good measure.

bicknergseng• 13 years ago

I wonder if we will ever have a historical perspective capable of comparing the current NSA/CIA/FBI with the likes of the Dulles brothers and J Edgar Hoover.

Pres. Obama Remarks on Intelligence Programs [video]

Related Stories