Don’t know when this ends, but:
On January 17, President Obama spoke at the Justice Department about changes in the technology that we use for national security purposes, and what these technologies mean for our privacy broadly. He called on the administration to conduct a 90-day review of big data and privacy: how these areas affect the way we live, and the way we work — and how data is being used by universities, the private sector, and the government.
This is a complicated issue that affects every American — and we want to hear your feedback. Learn more about this review, and if you like, share your thoughts.
@Atticus – I so agree with you.
Obama proposes NSA reforms. Why now?
Facing an upcoming legislative deadline, the White House has proposed the reforms nearly a year after NSA leaker Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the metadata program.
“In other words, these ‘reforms’ seem to arise as much from the fact that the outrage against this dragnet provides the government with an opportunity to build a system more appropriate to the task at hand rather than what they could jerry-rig together in secret,” Wheeler writes in her initial reaction to Thursday’s White House proposal.
Anything they actually do will be in name only and the NSA will be allowed to police their own “reforms” or any over sight committee will be completely secret like the Fisa Court. I believe there will be real reforms when I see them and not before and even then I’ll have to go and look at who was put in charge of handling the “reforms” Obama has a habit of appointing people to run such things who have a vested interest. Cat Food Commission is a good example. He didn’t HAVE to appoint the people he put on that thing who had long wanted cuts but, he did appoint them and not without some thought. Then he turned around and said he was “fighting against” those who wanted to cut. Really? If you were fighting against such things why did you personally appoint people who have LONG been known to want severe cuts? It’s eleventy dimensional chess with him remember.
It happened again with ACA when he cut deals behind closed doors way before any discussion in congress with big pHarma and insurance companies then came out and said he “fought for more but, couldn’t get it” BULL hockey! He took single payer off the table, he wouldn’t even let those advocates have a seat to talk about the situation and refused them entry. He also had ALREADY cut the deal and made promises to the above mentioned industries that look exactly like what he got. The so called “fighting for” better than that was nothing but, a dog and pony show *see a theme?* I do. He said the “republicans” caused the deal to be as it was but, that is not the truth at all. In fact he knew he had already given big insurance industry everything they wanted and more.
They’ll run with this “but, but look over there! We tried to get over sight, we couldn’t get what we wanted because of the mean opposition, Vote for us!” theme as they have oft done before but, if you look behind the curtain and look at the reports you will soon see the plan was to only appear to get changes. He’s the best I have ever seen at telling the public one thing while doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. Smooth!
@AtticusinCanada
He is almost as good a magician as David Blaine convincing us the impossible is real.
Innocente, That’s great for Brazil.
Unless we get the Conservatives out, they’ll be going for that 7B Albatross called the F-35. I think Canada should go for MiG 35 Fulcrum or Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker, The less we tie ourselves to the United States military infrastructure the happier I’ll be. Unfortunately the Gripen (as a single engine 4th/5th crossover fighter) may be ruled out as a result of Canadian Armed Forces wanting a two-engined fighter for patrolling the Arctic. The Rafale might still be in contention though. Although I wouldn’t mind seeing a concerted negotiation for the Eurofighter Typhoon.
As far as Obama’s views on data collection, it’s his way of sifting through those “who are for him” versus “those who are against him”. Wouldn’t put it past him to use it against those who would open their mouths.