"... according to people briefed on the negotiations,"
writes Claire Cain Miller in the NYT.
The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions....
While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so....
[I]nstead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said....
Read the whole thing. I found it telling that the NYT threw in — amidst all the legal and technical things — this paragraph:
Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike McCue, Flipboard’s chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla’s big, shaggy dogs.
And with that, I feel the mainstream tide turning against Obama. The meaning of the famous smile has changed.
পোস্টগুলি
১৮টি মন্তব্য:
So they were in bed with him.
Just like the Gray Lady.
Were the "campaign contributions" part of the "negotiations?"
And what the Hell is that little slug doing at more fundraisers? Didn't he tell the Russian President, as he promised to sell us out, it was his "last election"?
Or is he going to become "Papa O, President For Life"?
I say there should be no movement on any issue -- Congress should basically go on strike -- until we figure out how we became Venezuela.
Ann Althouse said...
And with that, I feel the mainstream tide turning against Obama. The meaning of the famous smile has changed.
No, the American tanks are in the town square and all the collaborators are trying to convince everybody they were working for the Allies all along.
These people have been caught with their hands in the till and are trying to pull out before the drawer is slammed on their fingers.
The "meaning of the famous smile" hasn't changed. Some people may finally find the scales falling from their eyes, but a lot of people knew that "smile" was just a smirk, the smug little sneer of someone who hated and held in contempt all who he held beneath him.
And with that, I feel the mainstream tide turning against Obama.
The thing about tides is: they're cyclical. They go back and forth with great regularity.
But you can always count on them flowing the democrat way at election time.
It only matters if it leads them to be more objective; if it just causes them to have hurt feelings dealing with Obama, but remain enamored with Democrats in general, it will do them no good.
When the tide goes back out there'll be dead fish on the beach but plenty more where they came from.
Lover's spat. Watch for the make-up sex; should be good.
From Commentary's Peter Wehner in "Obama Can't Be Trusted with Power":
I also agree with Jonathan that “no one should be under any illusion about whether they [those at the New York Times] will press this or any other issue if they thought the president was in any real trouble. Their pious disclaimers notwithstanding, partisanship will always trump principle at the Times.” That is true of many other liberals in the press as well.
mesquito said...
I say there should be no movement on any issue -- Congress should basically go on strike ...
I feel that way, too ... however it is likely too late now. Who, what enforcement agency, would stop the administration from self-appropriating funds and writing new laws, over-ride old laws, etc. with executive orders?
Our court system was put on notice in the SOTU speech of 2011 that judgments not favored would not be enforced. It has run scared and shy ever since. When a District court had the audacity to rule against the administration it has been totally ignored ... think NLRB.
Our Congress has yet to put out a formal budget going on 5 years now, and after that period it is being *deemed* unnecessary...both formal budgets and Congress itself.
We will have perpetual continuing resolutions (95% of prior period's expenditure is allocated without oversight) and omnibus late year spending bills (to pick up the 5% plus any new whims)only for those programs that meet with executive approval....like Gen McChrystal's proposal for expanding Americorps or a similar program by $12.5 Billion or so per year.
Speaking of McChrystal's toady little proposal he couched in "Universal Service" terms that would impact all Americans...no it wouldn't, at most over 10 years it might impact < 3% of Americans...but that is enough cadre in training to keep the autocracy in place.
Short of a virtual massive revolution at the polls, all elected office wide, we may be done for... but I'll listen to anyone who thinks we aren't and why that might be so.
"And with that, I feel the mainstream tide turning against Obama. The meaning of the famous smile has changed."
Bless your heart.
There is this as a possible sign of hope. It looks like the Labor Party in Australia (the functional equivalent of the Democrats) is heading to a defeat in a few months (after the supposed death of their opposition a few years ago) that might give the opposition Liberal Party (the functional equivalent of the Republicans) 70% of the seats in Parliament.
No, it's not the same system but it shows what people can do when they get fed up with an out of control ruling party if they want to.
No, it's not the same system but it shows what people can do when they get fed up with an out of control ruling party if they want to.
That only works in a country with honest elections.
"And with that, I feel the mainstream tide turning against Obama. The meaning of the famous smile has changed."
I think the statement quoted below is more correct.
"I also agree with Jonathan that “no one should be under any illusion about whether they [those at the New York Times] will press this or any other issue if they thought the president was in any real trouble. Their pious disclaimers notwithstanding, partisanship will always trump principle at the Times.” That is true of many other liberals in the press as well. The degree to which a substantial number of the elite media are in the tank for President Obama varies–but that they are in the tank is unquestionable."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/07/obama-cant-be-trusted-with-power/
Aridog said...
I agree with your premise.
I go a step further...
I agree with the muted, subtle voices on the periphery that say "the police state has moved beyond the control of government"
A sort of coup d'état, as another put it.
The mainstream tide turned in '10 when Scalia said, "Untrue", at SOTU.
People started turning him off around then, but the lies, excuse-making, and fantasies go on.
Don't worry NYT was mad they were not invited. That paragraph will be airbrushed soon.
I'm not sure that the bit about the fundraiser at the tech exec's house or hanging out with venture capitalists represents a turning of the tide. The people I know in the NYT orbit lionize the VC crowd and tech execs, and the vast majority of Silicon Valley VCs and tech execs that I deal with (including some of the heavyweights) are as much in the tank for President Obama today as they were in 2008. It's a tribal affiliation thing. In part, it's why Obama remains quite popular, even if his policies are not.
Cheese and rice...you and your brain trust flunkies couldn't be anymore full of crap.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন