Intelligence Community Says President Obama's Non-Plan To 'End' Metadata Collection Is 'Impossible'

from the shockingly-unshocking dept

What do you get when the President of the United States, rather than take a stand and act as a leader, decides to try to “balance” everything by pretending to promise to end the Section 215 bulk metadata collection, while promising to “retain its capabilities”? And then, after announcing that non-plan, tossing it over to the Attorney General and Congress to sort out the details? Yeah, you get a whole lot of nothing. And, folks in the intelligence community are basically saying that nothing’s going to change because what he’s suggesting isn’t really possible.


“The idea that this complicated problem will be solved in the next two months is very unlikely, if not impossible,” said one official with knowledge of the discussions. “It is not at all inconceivable that the bulk collection program will stay the same, with the records held by the government until 2015,” when the law that authorizes the bulk collection is set to expire.

And, of course, many assume this was the plan all along. Say that they’re ending the program while promising to keep the capabilities, then punt the issue to others to work out, and you pretty much guarantee the status quo for quite some time. Perhaps permanently. This wasn’t leadership, this was passing the buck. And that’s why most of the intelligence community seems perfectly happy with the result.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Intelligence Community Says President Obama's Non-Plan To 'End' Metadata Collection Is 'Impossible'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
28 Comments
Ninjasays:

As long as the Americans don’t start voicing the oposition and acting they have no reason to change anything. And I suspect a huge chunk of the Americans either are (still) ignorant or share the opinion that it’s either necessary (because terrorism) or they have nothing to hide. So yeah, thought times for those who can grasp what’s at stake now.

Anonymous Howardsays:

Re: Re:

Democracy requires it’s citizens to be well informed, intelligent (ha!) and attentive of the problems at hand.

When people can’t be bothered to part from their favorite soap opera and reality show for some real news, then you get a system like this.

I don’t think it’s incidental tho..

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

attentive of the problems at hand.

First would be the problems as hand would have to be simple enough to figure out a solution for.

Next it would require citizens to have standing and a willingness to engage in a legal fight to attempt to correct the problem.

Few problems are simple and even fewer have the willingness to fight.

Anonymous Howardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

First would be the problems as hand would have to be simple enough to figure out a solution for.
You imply that there are actual problems that a politician can solve, but a group of experts (real experts with working knowledge) couldn’t. You must be kidding, right?

We live in a society for a reason. No one is capable of solving every problem, but together..

Next it would require citizens to have standing and a willingness to engage in a legal fight to attempt to correct the problem.
I’m talking about a real democracy, not some legal fight. In a real democracy, every citizen have a standing because they’re citizens.

Anonymous Howardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think that’s the crux of the problem with the current system: people despise their “leaders”.

A democracy don’t really need leaders in the traditional sense. (that’s why it is much less susceptible to bribery and corruption, and more to demagogy)
It needs a forum where people decide what to do, and an executive branch that executes exactly what is decided, exactly as decided by the people.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

“It needs a forum where people decide what to do, and an executive branch that executes exactly what is decided, exactly as decided by the people.”

The problem is: how do you determine what “the people” want? Is it a simple majority kind of thing, where anything less than 50% support for a yes/no proposition is considered not to be the will of the people? Do minorities get any say in the matter, and, if so, who is to meet their demands when the rest of “the people” will not support them? Does the executive branch ever get to act against a small majority in favor of a large minority? Against a large majority for a small minority?

It makes no sense to speak of “the will of the people” when there’s no such thing as “the people”. That’s why democracy from the top down — whether in the form of “leaders” or in the form of “executives” — will never quite work.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

breaking news = always exciting!
continuing scandal = very valuable for gathering viewers, but unless it brings many and important new developments it will tire people of news about the issue.
political reaction = after the initial political actions it is usually pretty much settled, for now. No need to talk about it, since something has been slammed together to make some reports to support decision making (in several ways…).
reports come out = not very exciting. The continuing scandal will often have been over for some time and people are becoming increasingly bored of the issue.
actual legislative action = who the beep cares anymore. Now you are just covering the issue to drive people away…

FM Hiltonsays:

The question at hand

You mean, there was a problem to be solved here?

Something wrong with the way the government works?

Hey, don’t threaten the status quo, will ya?

We work here for a living, and we know what we’re doing!

“We’re the government and we’re here to help/protect/spy on you.”

Now go away and let us do our jobs in peace and quiet, you peasants! No more of this nonsense!

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re:

I agree with them, actually. I don’t think it’s solvable given the parameters that are expected to be met: retain its capabilities.

The issue, of course, is that it’s “capabilities” are the problem that needs to be solved. They need to be eliminated. That’s not going to be part of the solution by definition.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow