After NSA Speech, Privacy Advocates Left Wanting More

[Purveyor]

By ALEX BYERS | 1/17/14 2:58 PM EST

Civil liberties groups said President Barack Obama hit some of the right notes in his NSA reform speech Friday — but they want more.

The president admitted the need for a widespread adjustment of the nation’s intelligence practices. But the question of whether it amounts to significant change won’t be answered for months.

“I would characterize today’s speech as baby steps when bold leaps are necessary,” said Kevin Bankston, policy director for the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “Much of what the president said is pointing in a good direction, but there are still a lot of key unanswered questions.”

The groups have followed closely the administration’s evolution on intelligence matters since Edward Snowden first shattered the secrecy surrounding surveillance programs in June.

A new and immediate requirement that the government obtain judicial approval before querying its massive database of Americans’ phone records is a positive, if unfinished, sign for privacy advocates. But the centerpiece of Obama’s proposal — a reworking of the phone records program that could have telecommunications providers or a third-party hold those records rather than the government — furthers a suggestion that privacy groups and their industry counterparts have repeatedly dismissed.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/barack-obama-nsa-speech-privacy-advocates-102328.html#ixzz2qgtRQIJ1

[mike_c]

1. it was thin sauce....

Palliative care for the surveillance state, IMO.

[KoKo]

2. That's an interesting statement from the "New America Foundation."

They are pretty centrist and it's nice to have their voice that what POB proposed doesn't go far enough.

[geek tragedy]

3. Obama could have gone up there and farted for 40 minutes, and three headlines

could have been written:

a) privacy advocates left wanting more;
b) Republicans accuse Obama of undermining war on terror
c) Democratic partians hail Obama's 'leadership on reform'

[JaneyVee]

4. What about non-privacy advocates, don't they get a say?

[whatchamacallit]

5. You forgot this

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. They kind of run the place.

And they've just stored your post, and my reply.

[Wilms]

7. All of Prosense's work today for nothing.

[ProSense]

8. I'm trying

a new approach: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024348411

Just think, the Third Wayers in the OP piece and those aligned with Rand Paul can unite.

[Wilms]

9. OK. I gave you a view on that.

But no rec.

The good news is that, for me, the blue link has changed color.

[Cha]

12. You can't handle the message so you attack the messenger.

Big Fucking Fail with your tears.

[Fumesucker]

13. Snowwald had Pole Dancers in his garage

[Wilms]

14. There's a difference between a message and a narrative.

A lot of really smart people post here. And they notice the stench.

I don't hate your teen idol. It's just that I have a crush on the Constitution. (Wilms swoons).

Oh. And watch the potty mouth.

[Cha]

15. You have nothing to say about

the OP but go immediately to attacking a member of DU for Nothing.

I think everyone knows whose tactics those are.

[Wilms]

16. For nothing?

There were threads about it.

And it goes from "why do you hate Obama?" to, ruh-roh....see he's you're buddy. Seems like the message is getting through.

Tactics? Transparent as glass.

[1000words]

19. Comedy gold, this is ...

Seriously. Thanks for the laugh.

[bobduca]

18. Hey at least she got a good laugh out of it?

at least she claims that Mr Roffle Waffles appears to coincide with actual legitimate laughter. I suspect its more a scowling grimace and canned laugh track.

[woo me with science]

10. "Privacy advocates"? How about "Constitution advocates."

Good god.

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. Ramen to that..

serisly...

[Fumesucker]

11. The McDonnell XP 67 Moonbat