> Australia just outlawed warrant canaries. Scary times.
Assuming you accept the need for the non-disclosure requirements in some court orders and administrative subpoenas, wouldn't the decision to allow canaries be a legal mistake in the first place? (Albeit AFAIK one also made by the US Department of Justice)
The argument for the legality of canaries would have to rely on the distinction between the affirmative and negative disclosure. But it is very easy to imagine a service that scrapes sites with canaries and publishes an affirmative list of those which took theirs down recently (or in a given time interval). This completely subverts the argument.
Is it perhaps yet another case where the legal minds failed to account for the current (actually... two decades old) state of technology? Am I missing something?
But it is very easy to imagine a service that scrapes sites with canaries and publishes an affirmative list of those which took theirs down recently (or in a given time interval).
Reddit released its transparency report for 2015 and the warrant canary language was missing.
Maybe that's an edit after your post. I agree that a silhouette of an expired canary lying on its back, wings spread awkwardly, tongue sticking out, eyes crossed, would make this communication more effective.
Yeah, that's odd. It's timestamped March 31st - perhaps it was serving a stale application level cache (I've not been to the site in a while, or so I thought). Now the canary-logo is taken down from the reddit listing on the front-page too.
Practically there's no difference, the consequences of a canary or blowing the whistle is the same. But the interesting thing is canaries require the government to order someone to lie, whereas the other just compels them to not tell the truth.
I don't see how such a service would invalidate the argument; you could prevent that service from affirming it, but that shouldn't impact the original canary issuer.
And I don't think canaries are really a feature of current technology; seems like one could have simply posted a weekly newspaper ad with the same content.
There's a better approach that depends on third-party scraping. You publish the canary on a schedule, but take it down as soon as it's been scraped. So there's nothing to take down when you get the warrant, NSL, etc.
Edit: And then you don't publish the canary as scheduled. Before you got the warrant, NSL or whatever, you were subject to no court order. So you were free to speak. After getting it, can you be compelled to speak falsely?
My understanding is that, no, the government cannot compel you to speak falsely or, generally, to do other things you don't want to do.
As I understand it, this is related to the argument that Apple was using vs the FBI recently, that while the FBI could compel Apple to produce things in its possession (like Farook's iCloud backups) it could not compel Apple to do things like produce a custom version of iOS.
IANAL, but, this is mostly based on what I remember reading last year when the whole warrant canary idea first started getting publicized.
IANAL: I don't believe that secret warrants 'trip' one's right to face their accuser, as that is a right for courtroom proceedings, which are significantly different from the warrants about which you speak.
Well, canaries ought to be signed with GnuPG or whatever. But then, we're back to https://xkcd.com/538/ ;) But that would be harder against a corporation.
Hypothetically, what would happen if somebody made them use their force in a very public, visible way (that is, refuse to comply, and post live video on multiple video sites)? How big of an operation can be kept secret by physical violence?
There wouldn't be some sort of black-ops, Bruce Willis style operation. You'd simply be someone being arrested by some FBI agents for violating federal law, and they could do that at noon on a Tuesday smiling to TV cameras if they wanted to.
> Assuming you accept the need for the non-disclosure requirements in some court orders and administrative subpoenas
You could distinguish between temporarily keeping particular orders a secret, permanently keeping them a secret, and permanently keeping secret even summary information about the number, kind, and scope of the orders (or what kind of matters they related to).
To be fair, I've always thought that warrant canaries were extremely questionable legally. If the government can legally say "You're not allowed to spill the beans about this", then using a warrant canary is directly subverting that order.
As a result, I always assumed that anyone that had a warrant canary in place would get a court order to keep it up regardless.
I would be shocked if they stood up in court, and I don't find the outlawing of it any more disturbing than allowing secret warrants in the first place. (Although secret warrants are pretty damn disturbing.)
Theoretically an order compelling speech, especially false speech, scares courts more than prohibiting speech in certain circumstances, which happens frequently.
I may be wrong but in the Australian case it seems journalists are forbidden from creating a canary in the first place, they cannot say they did or did not receive a gag order. That's what I got from what I've read but not sure.
If the issue was being forced to continue with the canary then there is a solution for that just use as a canary, before you received any order: We have received a gag order!
And when you do receive a gag order what are they going to do? Make you remove that? Keeping it seems as a direct violation of that order.
I like the section from Moxie in that article. Did anyone check if this is lawful to begin with? I mean, if you can't tell that you were asked for private data, can you 'tell' by now saying that you weren't asked for private data?
Just to be safe: Any NSL is crap. Braindead. I'm not trying to support that BS. This is among the worst possible ideas a government can come up with and belongs in the realm of (referring to recent posts) Turkey at the moment.
But IF they exist for some reason, is a canary really working? Isn't this just another 'The government cannot crack my password' argument, missing the lead pipe way..?
This seems like one of those better to ask for forgiveness than permission kind of things. What NSLs thrive on the most is lack of attention. Anything that brings more high profile is something the NSA would prefer to avoid, lest case law gets more clarified around them.
> Australia just outlawed warrant canaries. Scary times.
Outlawing warrant canaries per se is not scary at all. They're a method of communicating information that has been deemed to be forbidden, so it's just a way of preventing the rules-lawyering method of still conveying that info. The overreach of such things in the first place is the scary part, not the stuff around canaries themselves.
The focus should be on getting rid of the overreach of these things, not on preserving a loophole.
There is no "court order". That's the whole point of a warrant canary. A fact is asserted when there is absolutely nothing preventing you from asserting that fact.
Do you want to restrict everyone's speech just in case, or force them to lie? Those are the choices.
The warrant comes with an order prohibiting you from communicating its presence. That prohibits any means, no matter how cleverly informed by information theory, from communicating that information.
It only forces them to lie if they deliberately take means to force themselves into a lie. "I have not received any warrants that I'm legally allowed to discuss with you."
It doesn't need to "trickery". It could be as simple as someone asking if you've received any warrants, and just not answering.
The government shouldn't have the ability to compel people to lie, that's the issue. As far as I know they don't have that ability, and there is nothing illegal about this.
They can compel people to lie already with the NSL - it just depends on how the question is phrased. "Removing a warrant canary" is no different to staging a question from someone that is "Say 'no comment' if you've received an NSL". In both cases, the absence of a response has been set up to convey the forbidden information.
It's not illegal to answer "no" if asked whether you have received a national security letter, and neither is it illegal to answer "no comment" if asked whether you have received a national security letter. Nor, further, is it illegal to respond with silence.
Having once given a legal, true answer to the question "have you received a national security letter", a person can later give a different legal, true answer to the same question, or can later choose to respond with silence.
Otherwise, you are asserting that the feds may do more than merely forbid the recipient of an NSL from talking about it, and actually have the authority to force the recipient of an NSL to lie about it.
I sure hope that isn't true. If it is, I'm not sure any of this matters, because we're all fucked already. I cannot conceive of any legitimate justification for allowing any government to have such a power.
I remember several mods of r/darknetmarkets posting that they received NSL's forwarded from actual reddit admins.. Not sure if that post is still available though.
Yes, but they still could have been accompanied by gag orders despite not being a NSL. There are several categories of administrative subpoenas which can have them, and which could have been plausibly used in my case - the financial ones, for example, due to the Bitcoin/money laundering nexus.
> Australia just outlawed warrant canaries. Scary times.
Australia outlawed warrant canaries for journalism warrants (warrants for journalists when they investigate someone). I'm fairly sure that law doesn't apply to all other kinds of warrants.
Ridiculous times too, when all of this gathering of data is predicated on a flawed assumption that it won't just be creating more noise in the attempts to predict terrorism. We've switched from one wasteful, illegal, and noisy method (kidnapping and torture) to invading privacy.
Isn't an NSL by definition a non-noisy, targeted method? I'm going off of the widely known methodology for getting data from a U.S. company, FAA 702, popularly known as "PRISM".
Do you have any links describing NSLs being part of a noisy, dragnet operation?
A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower.
Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS.
Maybe it's that he decided to use his political clout to pick healthcare as his signature in American history, not wage war against the NSA, but either way it saddens me to have campaigned for someone who has empowered a surveillance state instead of fight against it.
Liberty literally means "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control", and freedom in the information age means the liberty to communicate and store information. Anything to compromise that makes us all more vulnerable to control in all parts of our lives, not just those stored in zeros and ones. I believe America can be "Land of the free, home of the brave", but not without digital liberty.
I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another.
A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard since he became president. His daughters are the only teenagers in America who've never been near Snapchat (the Secret Service will keep it that way). And he's literally surrounded by security officers and spooks everywhere he goes. They manage every interaction he has so you can imagine their worldview is going to affect him.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He's so completely off the deep end nowadays (between this and TPP) that it's heartbreaking as a long time supporter. I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs. It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.
> I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs.
No doubt he will. But let's stay focused on the debate for now. He's still in office. There's still time to share facts with him.
He says he has a digital services team. Who holds those positions currently?
And who are his technology advisors? What are they saying on this issue? What have they shared with Obama?
From Obama's remarks, it sounds like he treats the digital services team more as a toolset, rather than a team of trusted advisors.
EDIT: The next PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) meeting will be on March 25 and webcast here [1]. No need to sign up, just visit that page on the date to view. I suggest we all watch this and submit questions to their group in advance.
They meet every other month. The last meeting was on January 15, which predates Comey's open letter to the public (Feb 21) about the San Bernardino case, so they have not yet publicly discussed encryption in light of what's happened since Comey's letter.
I have hundreds of bookmarks in chrome. I have so many bookmarks that I've essentially stopped making new ones because the back log is simply too large.
That speech I bookmarked. Despite the terrible formatting that speech is a work of art applicable to every human being who holds power, whether it's POTUS or the office manager.
I'd recommend Pinboard.in. If you pay for an account with Bookmark Archive, it will also save a permanent copy of the bookmarks so that you can read them even if the original goes down, and provides full text search over them. There's a nice "Save Pinboard Bookmark" that you can add as a Bookmarklet. Lastly, it has a flag for "Read Later" if you like tracking that intention.
It is excellent for solving the information craving that goes, "I could have sworn that I read something about that...", and then actually finding it later, sometimes years later, in appropriate need. I don't use that capability very often, but I love the feeling that I have a permanent archive of all this information.
The problem with "adjusting your browser" is that this requires creating a default style which is at odds with virtually every other site.
Which points to a significant problem with the Web: one reason we're inundated with crap styles is that the browser defaults are crap.
If the W3C and browser vendors set sane margins, padding, font sizes, etc., at least we could fall back to these rather than deal with the crap of current website design.
But the defaults are crap, and designers try to "improve" on them, and ....
That said, unstyled HTML (if that's what this is, I can't inspect the page) remains better in most cases than styled pages.
Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact.
For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear.
We almost never say it. I want to say it. As someone who first became politically aware during the post 9/11 Bush era, it's really nice to have an administration in the White House that isn't trying to scare us.
We wouldn't live like that in a Trump administration. We would live in fear.
"SCOTT SHANE: Well, five years ago, there were—there was a question about what to do as Gaddafi’s forces approached Benghazi. The Europeans and the Arab League were calling for action. No one really knew what the outcome would be, but there was certainly a very serious threat to a large number of civilians in Benghazi. But, you know, the U.S. was still involved in two big wars, and the sort of heavyweights in the Obama administration were against getting involved—Robert Gates, the defensive secretary; Joe Biden, the vice president; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.
And Secretary Clinton had been meeting with representatives of Britain, France and the Arab countries. And she sort of essentially called in from Paris and then from Cairo, and she ended up tipping the balance and essentially convincing President Obama, who later described this as a 51-49 decision, to join the other countries in the coalition to bomb Gaddafi’s forces."
No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.
Better that and kill some terrorists than send an entire army for the same terrorists. Much more efficient and safe for everybody, including the country where the drone is used. Better a drone than an army.
I am not against the strategic use of drones vs. putting boots on the ground. I am questioning the number of countries we have used drones in. A lot of questions are also being raised about the targets being "terrorists", and I am not talking about an accidental drone strike at a wedding of civilians, but the public's blind acceptance that we are indeed getting the 'bad guys'. I am not so sure the ratio of bad guys to civilians is as high as reported. Are you, and what's your evidence?
This recent debate has quite literally centered on his administration using the San Bernardino shootings as leverage to force Apple to break iPhone's encryption. It's the main reason this whole discussion has the profile level it does.
He's asking to strike a balance in a court case. The tone, the actions, are so incredibly measured. Even though I disagree with them. And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.
In comparison, six weeks after 9/11 we got the entire PATRIOT act rammed through, and the current NSA domestic panopticon put into place illegally and in secret.
And the administration is making it's arguments openly, we are not being manipulated by the general climate and context.
We aren't being made to feel afraid in the way we were in those dark years. We are not being told to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal doors and windows in case of biological or chemical attack. The administration is not making a big show of deploying missile batteries in DC, while the Terror Alert is raised another shade, all based on "chatter".
We had a Vice-President say we are going to have to "work the dark side", and he meant torture. And we did, in dark dungeons on the far side of the world.
We started to torture, and we all have to live with seeing torture a regular fixture in our entertainment. That wasn't the case in the same way before the Bush administration normalized the practice. Obama ended this inhumanity on his first day in office.
When I see how far reaching the changes to our culture were, when I see how it's percolated, when I see it in Hostel, Game of Thrones, or in the far more radical Scandal, which is actually honest about the sadistic motivations behind torture, I wince and mourn what we lost as Americans, and I curse the name of Dick Cheney.
We were, all of us, debased. Even our culture and entertainment was debased.
And the open source, lone wolf style of ISIS has a far greater potential to be exploited to cause mass hysteria. The fact that it isn't is a refreshing departure from what I fear is the norm in American politics.
The entire stance, attitude and tone from Obama makes me feel secure. Because I'm far more afraid of government overreach and repression than any terrorist group.
Watching Trump, hearing Chris Christie call this WW III, it gives me terrible flashbacks to a time I am glad is over.
"And let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria -- what happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there's a terrorist network that's operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia?
> And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.
So what? The underlying debate is whether or not the DOJ should be allowed to require phone manufacturers to guarantee they can decrypt phone data when served with a warrant.
You can rally for Apple to make a more secure phone all you want. That is a separate issue. It doesn't change the fact that the DOJ is willing to do everything it can to get access to all phones through the courts or Congress. They don't care how it happens, they just want it.
It's not about one phone, it's not even just about the phones the DOJ currently has waiting to be decrypted. It's about every phone in the world. The DOJ knows this, but they can't say that because it is part of their position to argue that this is only about one phone.
This is politics. These are lawyers. They will say anything that they think will convince a judge, Congress or the American people to win them to what they believe is the correct side. That's how our system works.
They're not conspiring to do evil. They just don't have all the facts. And even if they are conspiring to do evil, our course should be the same. We should educate each other about how encryption works, and how legislation requiring backdoors would actually make us all less safe on balance than having no backdoors at all.
The difference between Bush's (and Congress's) response to 9/11 and Obama's response to San Bernadino were as different in scale as 9/11 was to San Bernadino. The last time something happened that was a comparable scale to 9/11, the US responded by inventing, and then using, nuclear weapons.
Trump would make you pine for the days of George W. Bush. I think we took for granted the fact that Bush did things to smooth bigotry rather than incite it, like publicly declaring that Islam is a religion of peace and taking care to distinguish al-Qaeda from Islam in general. I think rather than pinning these things on the President we should take a look at the media, the rest of the government, and most importantly the public. Like it or not, the nationally televised murder-by-airliner of 3,000 people is going to incite panic, hatred, overreaction, and fear to a degree that not even the most resolute President can control.
I have (from afar) also witnessed the Bush presidency and regarding tone of voice and speeches, Obama was the far better diplomat and seemed very concerned with humanitarian causes.
I suppose we should also be appreciative he hasn't instituted gulags... that we know of anyway. But that's really beside the point for this discussion.
I think Obama had that in his character years before he even ran for President, so I think it is an easy out to say he was corrupted by the system in Washington. Basic character doesn't just do a 180. Granted, your ideals may be softened by coming up against those who oppose them, but they do not reverse and hide under the covers. All politicians promise many beautiful things, but they have their agendas. Under Obama drone strikes have multiplied in several nations we are not even at war with, and stayed out of the news for the most part, and he has not been made accountable in the slightest. Through his representatives it has been made clear that he wants Snowden to return and face espionage charges. Even if that is the way to face the government, he did not offer any of his take on it to say otherwise. I am very untrusting of most, if not all, politicians, since I see it is a game for people to gain and feel powerful. I do not idealize candidates in the slightest. Trump polarizes people, and I do not like him in the slightest; I know where he stands though. With Obama his rhetoric and his actions are not in sync.
> It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.
That's going on the assumption that he had integrity in the first place and I'm no longer immune to considering the possibility that he did not and just played the voters for all it was worth.
For instance: someone with integrity would have returned an un-deserved Nobel peace prize.
Quoting "Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award,[14][15] and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in."
But usually I don't agree with it, in Obama's case I do.
It's not as if he brought lasting peace to some place that's been on fire for the last 3 decades, besides the prize was awarded way too early in his first term for him to have time enough to accomplish such a thing in the first place (after only 9 months).
My personal view on this is that he mostly received it because he wasn't Bush and they were trying to shame him into doing the right thing (which may have had a point) but I don't think that worked out too well.
The big international war issue from 2003 to 2008 was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Enter Barack Obama, a candidate who campaigns vigorously on trying to get America out of Iraq and trying to limit or even undo some of the damage America inflicted on itself during that war (not to mention Iraq and its people).
Things have not gone all that well. But, when I imagine what would have happened if McCain had been elected, I conclude that things would have gone even worse.
What other candidate was pushing as vigorously for de-escalating and militarily disengaging from Iraq as Obama was? Hillary Clinton??
Where would we be on this particular issue if Senator Obama had not decided to run for president -- if he had just left it all to the existing establishment candidates?
I'm not so sure about all this. Bernie's been in Washington for decades as a Congressman, so he's been exposed to the same stuff, and his worldview is completely different from Obama's. Before he was elected, Obama had very little experience in Washington; he didn't even serve a full Senate term, and mostly voted "present". He just told us what we wanted to hear, and didn't have much of a record backing up his rhetoric. Hillary, by contrast, has a lengthy record, but it backs up all the worst actions that Obama has shown, but worse. Bernie has an even lengthier record but unlike Hillary there's no indication of corruption and his record is pretty much all good from a liberal perspective.
Note that Bernie and Hillary have both said they believe middle ground can be sought on this issue.
As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA, which TechDirt points out applies to "manufacturers and providers of telecommunications support services" [1]. Also from CALEA,
> (1) Design of features and systems configurations. This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or office
> (a) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services;
> (b) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
I believe the judge in the San Bernardino case will point to this to deny the DOJ's request to use the All Writs Act to compel Apple to write the special version of the OS. At the very least, CALEA is a strong statement that Congress has already decided that they will not pass laws requiring Apple and others to put backdoors in their phones. That doesn't mean the debate is over, however. Many people still do not understand encryption technology and will blame technologists for standing in the way of legislation that they perceive would have saved us from certain terrorist attacks.
Although Bernie has said he's against surveillance, he and many of his most vocal supporters remain uninformed about encryption. I tried posting a couple times in the Sanders subreddit, calling for Sanders to take a stronger position in support of end-to-end encryption [2]. The response was he can't take a position on this because it isn't a major issue. I think that time is fast approaching. Obama hasn't let up, and obviously neither will technologists. It's difficult for a politician or law enforcement official to tell the population that they can't track all communications in the manner they used to be able to, and on the other hand, we technologists cannot simply ask math to stop working.
>As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA
Huh? You must be too young to remember the Clinton presidency, but Clinton's administration made a huge push to force everyone to use the "Clipper" chip for encryption, which would have both mandated a specific type of (not-so-strong) encryption and given the government the keys for it through key-escrow. We're really lucky that Clinton couldn't get that one through Congress, but to claim that the Clintons are pro-encryption is being completely ignorant about history. They're only pro-key-escrowed encryption.
I didn't say the Clintons were pro-encryption. I said, "Oddly enough, they did the most for this side of the debate".
Maybe that's inaccurate, in that they probably weren't responsible for the exact language that comes to Apple's rescue in CALEA, however Clinton did sign it.
Anyway, my point was, in a thread about the iPhone case, in response to a comment with a user praising Bernie Sanders, that Bernie has not said anything different about encryption than Obama or Clinton, and that's it. That's my whole point. I am not making this political, I'm just sharing facts. Of course we know Hillary won't do jack to protect strong encryption. I don't think Sanders will support it either, based on what he's said so far.
I find your train of thought to be rather belittling and infantilizing of a man who, by all accounts, is quite brilliant (regardless of views on his politics, it's a commonly held position). Now, sure, people are affected by the circumstances in which they live, but you've framed it as though Obama has been hoodwinked by nefarious and persistent forces. Personally, I disagree with President Obama's crypto policies, but I don't assume that he came to his positions out of anything but a thoughtful reading of intelligence briefings and alike.
> I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another.
I completely agree, I bet it's not a great job most of the time and a really different and isolated world.
>there will probably not be a single American that thinks a bomb proof car in a exaggeration.
Everyone in the world knows the President's car is a mobile battle fortress. I saw an entire show about it on the History Channel.
That's not because he's detached from the people, though, it's an unfortunate necessity of office. The last time an American President rode around in public in a convertible, it didn't end well for him.
I think the following truth has a lot of relevance to your comment: the only way somebody gets elected president of the US is if it's a given that he or she will maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests.
Obama's campaign promises are as empty as those of any other politician. He's used his presidency to bring a windfall to the Halliburtons of healthcare and escalated the war on whistleblowers and the attack on privacy.
His successor will do the same.
We can hope that his supporters become appropriately disillusioned, but so much of politics is about loyalty in exchange for spoils, not ideas or accountability, so I'm not optimistic.
> maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests.
I think "maintain" is the best-case scenario under the current system. "Shift dramatically in favour of" is the worst case, and that's primarily what I'm voting based on these days.
This is actually why I'm so hesitant on Bernie Sanders. I'm seeing the same campaign promises, the same basic ideas, the same wild support base. And I can't help but think we're about to face the exact same result.
Voting for promises is IMO meaningless. Same shit, different day. Instead, look at a candidate's history and base your vote on that. Unfortunately that takes more effort than most are willing to spend, but I can't think of a better way to estimate what they will do in the future.
Could you imagine what that would do to politics if everyone voted based solely on a candidate's record instead of promises and charisma?
I'm not sure if anyone could really stand up to the rest of Washington for 8 years, without going in as such a zealot in some way that you might not really want them as President.
Ted Cruz/Paul Ryan/Ron Paul might be the closest thing to that. Bernie Sanders, maybe, although I'd have a hard time seeing him maintain an 8 year long fight. Everyone else is basically establishment to some degree (Trump doesn't strike me as ideological as much as opportunist++, although certainly different in style than the others.)
(And maybe you want someone reasonable/rational/etc. but not ideological as President.)
I think Sanders could maintain. I could be wrong, but he has a pretty long record of doing the right thing (from my perspective) and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to vote for if not his / her record? Charisma? Promises? Anger?
I think Sanders is more ideological than most credible candidates in history (which is a lot of the appeal); same as Ted Cruz. (just polar opposites on ideology)
They're both pretty exceptional as top-2 candidates for their party nomination for that reason, compared to historical trends.
Disclosure: I liked Obama as candidate, and I've liked him as president.
I haven't always been happy with some of his decisions and policies. But, my guess is that he's constantly being whispered the worst case scenarios.
A president probably feels responsibility for the well being of hundreds of millions of people. And, all that it takes are a few highly polished ex-lobbiest communicators whispering, 'if you won't strengthen this program, Mr. President, then a terrorist will unleash a dirty bomb on the east coast and injure tens of millions.' Who would want to be responsible for that? 'Oh, just wiretap citizens? I guess that doesn't seem too bad if it's an either-or-decision.'
Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of this mess. Bin Laden won when he turned the US into a 24-7 terror watch. Now, we live by fear and over-protection against an enemy that we can't see.
And once again we see what a bad idea it is for the US to only have two major political parties. If there was at least another major left-wing party, they could freely criticize Obama for acting more like a right-winger than a left-winger during his terms.
But the "supposed left-wing" Democrats can't do that right now even if they wanted to, because that would hurt their chances with the Democrats, and Independents are irrelevant in this context, as if they want to vote left-wing, they'll have no choice but to go Democrat anyway - even though Independents make up almost 50% of the country and could easily support at least another 2 major parties if they all were a little more organized and didn't get brainwashed into voting the same Democratic or Republican parties that they hate (and the reason they registered Independents).
Imagine you need to hire someone to guard a big red button. The best that can happen is nothing; but the worst that can happen is that they themselves decide to push the button.
The Executive branch effectively only has the purpose of destroying, stopping, blocking, canceling, and annulling things. The president vetos bills; stops foreign invasions with military power; commutes federal prison sentences created by the judicial branch; stops legislation from applying by signing trade agreements or granting amnesties; etc. And every department within the Executive, like the FDA or the SEC, exists solely for the purpose of blocking people from doing things.
So the President is effectively just sitting there in front of a control panel consisting entirely of big red buttons. Sometimes, rarely, situationally, it helps to press one of them. Pressing one at random, though, would almost certainly do damage and serve no purpose.
Obama's status quo was done by just avoiding pressing the big red buttons. That's bad in one way. But it's an entirely different kind of bad to start pressing lots and lots of the big red buttons. That's what George W. was actually hated for—what he did, not what he didn't do.
Trump couldn't accomplish much good, certainly. But he would have full access to a panel of big red buttons. Do you trust Trump there?
The conclusion here doesn't quite follow from the premises :). Obama didn't do what he said does not imply vote for Trump any more than it implies vote for tajen.
Now I'm going to delve into specific politics more than I normally like to do, but I think there are important ideas to consider. Even if a president doesn't do what he/she promised to do, the attitude of a president does have an effect on the country. Judging from the attitude of Trump and the raucousness of some of his rallies, I don't think Trump's attitude and that of his more violent supporters should be spread across the country. That alone is enough reason to vote for someone other than Trump.
It's pretty sad, though, to have several elections in a row where more and more people are voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate. I can only think of one current candidate who I would vote for positively, rather than to just to avoid another candidate who is more negative.
The good news about Trump is that he's not bought or sold. He is what he is, which from my viewpoint is better than the unknown that we currently have.
You don't become a billionaire without having deeply entrenched political and business connections. Donald Trump may be "self funded" but I don't believe for an instant that his persona is any less calculated than that of any other politician, or that his agenda is entirely his own.
Because he is a politician, and by definition a very successful one. Just because he wears a red baseball cap and is willing to use vulgar language and encourage violence at his rallies in the name of denouncing political correctness doesn't mean he's an anti-establishment maverick and hero of the common man, or that anything he says is sincere. He's simply found a gimmick that works.
To his credit, it seems to work extremely well. But that doesn't make him qualified for the office.
Ok, it might, to a degree because it's a political office, but... he seems like a charlatan. I don't understand why people trust him, he seems like the most obviously political figure in the entire field.
There is a large segment of the population (in every country) that responds very well to power figures. The same reason why people in Russia like Putin, and so many other dictators have been quite popular at times. Trump is trying to reach those people by acting like the power person in the race. On the other hand, a big part of the population is also adverse to power figures, myself included. I would never vote for an authoritarian figure and there are many others like me.
I've read this so many times I am starting to think this makes sense to the people saying it: "Trump may be [insert whatever], and [policy X] is ridiculous, and [statement Y] went over the line. But [X] won't ever happen, so I don't have to worry about it."
Don't get me wrong, using policy and public statements to judge fitness for public office isn't perfect, but it seems in this case we are substituting policy and public statement with something that has little or no relationship with executing a complex and demanding job.
You act like his entire life hasn't been "executing a complex and demanding job"? Running a small business is hard enough, I can't even imagine running an empire.
Trump has been one step ahead of every last person this entire election cycle. It's been fascinating to watch and I'm done doubting him, underestimating him, or second-guessing why he does or says anything. Now I'm simply at the point where I'm just trying to learn from it, because there are lessons for any business owner or public figure inside.
In fact, if he were to win, I'm not even convinced [X] "won't happen".
It doesn't have to be hard to run an empire badly.
A shell script that just repeats "Sell all assets and invest in SPY" would outperform Trump at running his empire, and it would have the side bonus of not being a crazy asshole.
I'm sure it's hard to do well. My point is that Trump hasn't done well. The fact that he built a not particularly successful business empire with inherited money doesn't say much about his skills or smarts.
Hiring good people is hard, for sure. Has Trump ever done it?
I find this line laughable. Everyone seems to think that turning a million into billions is a cakewalk.
Most people wouldn't even know where to begin and would lose their minds during any downturn. The others would buy a small house and whither away savings. The rest would waste it all on idiocy.
If you're running a billion dollar empire and it hasn't burnt to the ground, you can be sure that he's hired good people.
Why don't you go put $1,000,000 in a market simulator and tell me how your "shell scripts" do over the next 20 years.
Given that you haven't answered the original question, I'm guessing that you have hired very few or even zero people ever?
Trump inherited tens of millions. Other people have done the "market simulator" thing and the result is that Trump has not outperformed the market. My shell script would have done about as well at growing Trump's wealth as Trump did.
Turning tens of millions into a few billions over the past forty years is a cakewalk. I don't know why you think it's "laughable" to say this. It doesn't even require smart investing, just the minimal amount of non-stupid investing.
I haven't answered your original question because it's simply not relevant. You're trying to make an ad-hominem argument against me. I'm not exactly going to jump at the chance to help you with that.
Yep, it's clearly that easy when you can look backwards at it. You have a time machine too?
You and I both know that you would have shit your emotional bricks in every downturn... while these guys are all buying more. And if not that error, then you likely would have generated some other failure.
If you're so good, you'd have that shell script up and running by now. Use that 20/20 hindsight to go do it in the future and see how that goes. Go turn $1000 into $1,000,000. It's easy, isn't it? Everyone can do it!
Nope. Instead, you haven't answered my question because, I am now convinced, you have absolutely no clue how difficult it is to grow such a large business, albeit a small one.
But of course you won't answer - you've never walked the mile. Yet there you are, on your high horse driving from the backseat on Hacker News with talk of shell scripts and 20/20 hindsight whiling failing to see another person's accomplishments - that is the sin.
Disagree with Trump's political policies, fine. I honestly don't care. But to make business success sound so easy - especially in this forum where there are tons of people who have received generous amounts of capital and squandered it all - is to insult any successful businessperson out there.
Just try and say that he's "lucky". Be that person -- the worst kind -- and be done with it.
Sure, I'll call Trump lucky. What do you call it when someone inherits eight figures, if not luck?
I love how you constantly make stuff up about me, then argue against the stuff you made up. No wonder you're a Trump supporter. It's a personality match!
If what you're trying to learn is how to manipulate people, then I agree, he is a master. There is a name for this type of people, they're called con men. Trump is a sales person. He has trained himself to sell anything, and he is just selling a quick solution for people that feel disenfranchise by the current political system.
He is selling exactly what a serious amount of people in this country want. If you don't know that then you don't understand America. Go work in a factory for a year.
You sorely overestimate anyone's intentions. Nearly all Trump types simply want productive jobs and to be left alone. I know this because I've worked in factories with them (non-Union).
If it's racist to not want to send my job to China, then you really need to check the definition of racism.
And why is it that so many legal immigrants are pro-Trump? Hmmm.....
Should we try to read intentions beyond what he is literally saying? The defense of Trump is solely based on the idea that he doesn't mean what he says. But this is tantamount to say that he is a liar. If that is the case, how can someone ever trust him? If you need to build on fear and lies to be elected, it is anyone's guess what might be the result.
No Trump supporter is saying this at all. Most highly agree on at least one of his major platform issues. If we've learned one thing, it's that he means exactly what he says, and won't back down or apologize. This only makes him stronger.
The days of believing this guy is dumb are over. He has single-handedly changed everything in American politics, and did it while people like you were believing he was a clown. That too, makes him stronger.
Except that he cannot provide it. Most of his proposals would require to overturn centuries of laws and other American traditions. Promising that is akin to trying to sell the statue of liberty.
I mean simple things like deporting 11 million people, killing families of terrorists, legalizing torture, and closing the US to China imports, just for starters.
Not impossible. Other Presidents weren't even trying and they removed between 1-2 million.
I don't think you understand the amount of power ICE has if unhandcuffed and fully supported.
Plus, they can come back in legally. With papers. Through the door. What on earth is so hard about that???
> killing families of terrorists
We already do this - not directly, but if we know a family is shielding a high-value target, we will hit the entire building.
> legalizing torture
This is perhaps hyperbole, but wanting to play on a level playing field is not exactly an earth-shattering request. There are ways to intimidate without 'torture'.
> closing the US to China imports
Doubtful, but pushing for tariffs from Congress is within reason and would be supported by a great part of America.
How come? Polls & numbers (whatever value they have this early on in the "general" cycle) state otherwise. In fact, it looks like Bernie has a much better chance at the moment than Hilary... Don't you think Trump would dominate 24/7 news cycle on digging up Hilary's old wounds? What does he have on Bernie? "He's a communist you're voting for a communist!"?
Interestingly enough, the polls say otherwise. [0] [1]
As the Politifact piece notes, (1) it's early in the campaign; (2) Bernie is much less well known than Hillary, and his perceived negatives might become more important in the general election; and (3) polls can always be wrong. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be correct to say he has far worse odds against Trump than she does.
I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently.
edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!
It's funny, some threads you'd think everyone here was at least a socialist. Then in others you'd think everyone is one step short of declaring themselves sovereign citizens.
I think the lizard people who run the site just flip a coin when each story is posted to decide which kind of comments it'll have.
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism, and I suspect that a lot of people here have at least one foot in that ideology even if they've never heard about it.
I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time.
Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.
Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests.
Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of candidates which the parties and the media help select and shape, thus making sure a relatively docile candidate is chosen. Second, most modern presidents are very politically oriented and beholden to the groups that donated to them during their campaigns.
I think that can be used to describe Hillary, but I think both Sanders and Trump are non-docile and not beholden to outside interests. Sanders, because his funds largely come as a mandate from individuals and he is very clear about who he works for. Trump, because he has nothing at all to lose by doing whatever he wants.
This is kind of sad, when I think about it - what you're describing is Trump and Sanders being opposed to Hillary and <Trump's opposition, I forget the name> in a way that matters just as much as Democrat VS Republican, but that decision is entirely up to the Dem/Rep oligarchy.
The president has an enormous amount of power. The executive branch has been steadily expanding its power since the beginning of the country.
Consider, for example, a Sanders DOJ vs. a Trump DOJ? (I suspect a Trump FBI would be primarily interested in cataloging and spying on anyone critical of Trump or of Muslim faith, essentially use COINTELPRO as a starting point, but make it better and stronger and do good deals). What about a Sanders DEA? EPA? DHS? The executive can do nearly anything if they are bold enough. The executive can ignore the judicial branch ("He has made his ruling, now let him enforce it"), the legislative branch (subpoenas from congress? About illegal leaks of classified information for political purposes concerning Valerie Plame? Please direct the law enforcement officers with weapons in your branch to serve them. You don't have any?)
I believe Sanders would refrain from using executive power to make things worse, while I am certain all of the other candidates would not refrain. Hillary will not differ from Obama nor does she claim to. Trump's shtick is to be an American dictator, an executive strong man who advocates violence and abuse towards anyone who disagrees with him and acts as an outlet for racism and hate and anger. Imagine if he had an army of FBI, DHS, NSA agents at his beck and call.
I've always wondered what would happen if a President gave a TV-broadcast speech, telling people to write to their congressmen and demand a change of their policy on some issue.
Would that be illegal? Would it be speech? It's not like the President would be telling you who to vote for (though it might be different if the US had referendums, because the President would be telling you what to vote for); the President is simply attempting to sway your opinion, and then telling you to inform someone else of your (hopefully swayed) opinion.
This is exactly what I think Trump has in mind. First time congress doesn't do what he wants, he'll get on TV and list off every single congress critter that is getting in the way of Making America Great Again. They'll quickly fall in line or find themselves replaced in 2 years.
I wasn't implying that republicans controlling all three branches of government would be good. In fact, it's rather horrifying considering the current state of that party.
However, even if democrats won back the majority of congress -- are there enough left leaning democrats enough to support Bernie's platform?
If Sander's doesn't reneg on his promises he'll be a one-term president (which of course assumes he gets elected which would never happen). I mean, think of how much people hate Carter.
Based on the title of the post alone, someone with even center to left politics should expect to get jumped on in the following discussion. It's a post that's trolling for conflict, not solutions.
Ah, come ON: It was plenty clear just what the heck Obama was well before and during the election. E.g., Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and his other buddies. Then, during the campaign where he was campaigning and on a stage with Hillary and Bill Richardson and the US National Anthem was playing, Hillery and Bill had their hands over their hearts and Obama had his hands together and below his belt. Then there was his "my Muslim faith". Then on his apology tour where he bowed down to the heads of China, France, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.
Actually all of these sound like excellent gestures.
Not playing to BS patriotism and phony sentiment by having his hands "together and below his belt"? Daring to say "my muslim faith" (haven't heard of that, so I kinda doubt it, but still). Bowing in respect to heads of other nations, instead of playing the "greatest nation on earth"?
All of these all excellent.
It's all the OTHER stuff that's bad about what he did.
Nearly universally in the US, hand over heart during the playing of the US National Anthem is a biggie. A lot of highly patriotic US citizens could get all wound up about that. Each of Hillary and Richardson put their hand over their heart. It's a free country, so you are welcome to your opinion, but what Obama did would be telling to a huge fraction of US citizens and, thus, some telling background for someone asking the question I was responding to. Or, whatever you think about hand over heart, what Obama did correlates with some other things he did that were equally shocking to a lot of people, and that is, net, my point, independent of my opinion.
and I have links and personal copies of the other three. Just now I'm not going to the trouble to check if the other three URLs are current.
To a huge fraction of US citizens, bowing to a foreign leader is a biggie and part of why it was commonly said that Obama went on an "apology tour". Some people will conclude that he deliberately insulted the US in a way disloyal to the US.
Playing "greatest nation on earth" is irrelevant: No significant nation expects leaders of other nations to bow. Bowing is wildly inappropriate.
Some people will look at that clip and conclude that Obama just misspoke or was repeating something McCain didn't say but might have, etc. Take it as you wish.
Some people are disappointed in Obama, and some of what I wrote is some of why they had what should have been for such people good advanced information and warning. There was plenty of warning -- we knew who he was.
Judging people is not an exact science, but it is very much a necessary activity, especially in selecting a POTUS.
Again, the US is a free country, so you are free to disagree. Still, there was a lot of definitely unusual information, commonly offensive to a lot of people, before Obama was elected.
"My Muslim faith": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M
Some people will look at that clip and conclude that Obama
just misspoke or was repeating something McCain didn't say
but might have, etc.
I appreciate you posting that video. Watching, I feel that clearly the context is "John McCain himself hasn't said that I'm a Muslim but he insinuates it", and that he's just phrasing it as a counterfactual. I was interested enough to find a longer version of the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMhB-CwF4yc) and it struck me the same way.
But clearly you and others read it differently. I'd guess that's because you are (proudly) Christian, and don't think a "true" Christian would ever say intentionally say the words "my Muslim faith" if there was any chance of misunderstanding? A sort of reverse-shibboleth, akin to testing whether someone is an undercover informant by asking them to do something clearly illegal?
My guess has always been that Obama, like many politicians, is less devoutly Christian than many of his followers want him to be, but I've never suspected that he actually considers himself Muslim. Instead, I'd guess that he harbors enough religious doubt that he feels guilty about claiming to be Christian, but feels compelled to overstate his religiousness for political reasons.
Is this the sort of conclusion you draw from the video, or do you see it as evidence that he is actually committed to Islam? What's the thought process behind your interpretation?
To me Obama is a subject I wish I'd never heard about. I don't want to know about Obama. But I am a US citizen and, thus, basically need to try to understand him. To understand him is, as usual for people, not an exact science, but I have to try.
My first conclusion is that no way before he leaves office will he really say what or who he is. Not a chance. So, instead, he is putting on an act, much more than nearly anyone else. I do believe that he enjoys his acting and coming close to the line of revealing enough to let people draw conclusions but still leaving some ambiguity. He enjoys toying with the public perception of him without having the public draw serious, actual conclusions much like a cat can enjoy toying with a mouse without actually killing it.
IMHO, he gets away with his acting because the mainstream media (MSM) and nearly everyone in US public life want the Obama presidency to look successful, care about that even more than Obama does.
For most of the more important policy actions of the US in the last year or so, I have to conclude that they are very different from everything about Obama before a year ago, e.g., in the last year, what the US is finally actually doing against ISIS, the Chinese activity in the South China Sea, what North Korea is doing, and some US military advanced weapons programs. And I would include US diplomatic interactions with Netanyahu and Israel.
So, my guess is that Obama didn't direct or even approve of those policy changes. Then, meanwhile, Obama talks about letting 100,000+ Syrians into the US (I'll bet it won't happen), flies off to Hawaii for a long golf vacation, says that ISIS is "contained", shows up in Paris to claim that climate change is the most serious problem, or some such, and gave his recent call for essentially back doors on everything with an electron -- point, none of those are activities of a serious POTUS. So, for the past year, Obama has not been a serious POTUS. So, a guess is that in effect he is no longer the POTUS and that about a year ago a committee of leaders had a chat with Obama and told him the good news, he gets to stay in office and work on his golf game and jump shot, have bro dinners in the White House, etc. And more good news: He doesn't have to bother himself or lose sleep or interrupt his golf game to think about the work of POTUS. And the alternative? He leaves office right away. More evidence is the Ryan budget -- it was totally bipartisan and in other ways outrageous. So, in getting that budget passed something was up, and I can't believe that Obama had anything to do with it.
But the above is just the simple, superficial, easy to observe stuff about Obama.
For a real answer to your question, I should not answer dishonestly or answer honestly in public. Ask me again this time next year. I do suspect that at about this time next year will come out some tell all books from some Administration insiders, Congressional staffers, etc. that will be well beyond anything commonly discussed now. The US will have been seen to have "dodged a bullet", that some patriots came together and saved the country from a serious threat.
It's a free country. You can have your opinion. You asked for mine, and I gave a little. You can continue for yourself from there.
I appreciate the genuine response, although your explanations for events seem bizarre to me. I find them parallel to another current front-page article on mental illness:
I had tried to fill the gaps with guesses. But when my
guesses were wrong, conspiracy theories crawled in.
For me, the explanation that politicians are fallible humans is mostly sufficient. My guess would be that nothing to contradict Obama's official narrative comes out after he leaves office.
But I also fear that my own reasoning is flawed in ways invisible to me. We'll see what truth the future brings to light. Thanks for engaging.
Yup, sometimes something that goes bump in the night is dangerous and sometimes it is not. And sometimes we can guess that we heard something that went bump in the night but nothing did.
There are some bad things out there. We need to try to detect them. That sometimes we guess wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But before we draw big conclusions and take important action, we need to be very careful -- measure at least twice and saw just once and because we may not get to saw twice.
From a tech angle it's impressive and, sure, it seems great that they're able to use this sort of tech to track down seriously dangerous people responsible for brutal crimes.
At the same time, I can't help but be a bit uneasy with the potential for abuse. When you've got a complete aerial recording of a (city/town/etc) for days or weeks in a row, all you've got to do if there's someone you're after is "rewind" far enough before you catch them doing something you can nail them on.
Taken to extreme, imagine you're an a public official or law enforcement agent with an authoritarian bent. There's a pesky blogger or activist or reporter that's been making your life difficult and you'd like them out of the picture. How far back do you need to rewind before you catch them speeding or running red lights? What will the public think when you've got video of them visiting their secret lover or they learn how this person goes to the bar or liquor store every night to get drunk? Or how about the easy unmasking of their confidential info sources you're able to track backwards from their meetings?
I'm not necessarily one to kneejerk against any application of tech because of the potential for abuse because it misses the potential for very positive outcomes. At the same time, genies don't go back in their bottles willingly and I think it's important to identify these abuse potentials so they can be addressed early and decisively rather than after the abuses have become par for the course.
While not directly connected to the NSA, it's plausible the prosecution of Aaron Swartz amounted to suppressing dissent. It's hard to say what the root cause was prosecutorial overreach or a real effort to suppress a powerful political organizer. Either way, he became a target for his ideas and activism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
Australia just outlawed warrant canaries. Scary times.