Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

**Xiahou** · 10-01-2010, 01:57

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to Congress next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

Basically, the administration's plan is to require all Internet technologies to have a backdoor. This will force products that are unable to comply out of business and make them illegal. Further, building backdoors into everything to the government to use is a glaring security hole. Additionally, it would undermine customer confidence in products.

This is a terrible, terrible idea. Luckily, if they're not planning to submit the law until next year, there's a pretty good chance that it won't get passed. The GOP will have a majority in the House by then and will probably block it's passage just because it was Obama's idea..... hopefully.

**Lemur** · 10-01-2010, 02:41

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Yup, it's a baddie. Didn't we go through this once or twice already, with predictable failures?

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The GOP will have a majority in the House by then and will probably block it's passage just because it was Obama's idea..... hopefully.

Until you added that "hopefully" I was scared that you had the sight.

-edit-

Bruce Schneier (the godfather of network security, for those who've never heard of him) weighs in.

Obama isn't the first U.S. president to seek expanded digital eavesdropping. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to build ways to better facilitate FBI eavesdropping into their digital phone switches. Since 2001, the National Security Agency has built substantial eavesdropping systems within the United States.

These laws are dangerous, both for citizens of countries like China and citizens of Western democracies. Forcing companies to redesign their communications products and services to facilitate government eavesdropping reduces privacy and liberty; that's obvious. But the laws also make us less safe. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Any surveillance system invites both criminal appropriation and government abuse. Function creep is the most obvious abuse: New police powers, enacted to fight terrorism, are already used in situations of conventional nonterrorist crime. Internet surveillance and control will be no different.

Official misuses are bad enough, but the unofficial uses are far more worrisome. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and the people you don't. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured, and we're not very good at that. Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected internet data or eavesdrop on Skype and IM conversations?

**Lemur** · 10-06-2010, 05:15

An eerie coincidence:

Every few months, I post the following comparison, just to give pause to both the Left and the Right. Because as time goes by, Obama's approval numbers have been very closely tracking one particular previous occupant of the Oval Office -- none other than Ronald Reagan. Every so often, a political commentator will point out that Obama's numbers are currently better than Carter's or Clinton's were at the same point in their presidencies (which they are -- you can see comparison charts all the way back to Eisenhower, updated monthly, at my ObamaPollWatch.com site, if interested). But I personally have been struck at how closely Obama and Reagan are following the same path. Take a look, to see what I'm talking about (Reagan's second term is not charted, to make this easier to read):

Not only have their lines been tracking overall on the same general trajectory, but check out the last six months or so -- the lines are tracking not just on a general smoothed-out trendline, but month-to-month in almost perfect synch.

Conservatives have built up the myth of Reagan as being well-loved throughout his presidency, but he hit the same midterm doldrums Obama now finds himself in, and for almost exactly the same reason -- the economy was in the same doldrums, and it wasn't recovering fast enough to do the president any good politically. Reagan was about two points lower than Obama in disapproval, but he was almost four points lower in approval, as well.

It's also interesting to note that Reagan hit bottom right when the new midterm Congress (where Republicans took a shellacking) was sworn in.

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-11-2010, 21:16

In the proud tradition of American black (and I'm using the term loosely here) politicians on the rails, Obama plays the race card.

Invoking the Civil Rights Movement and emancipation, Obama encouraged “foot soldiers like you, sitting down at lunch counters, standing up for freedom” to do it again for him.

“I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to churches and go to the barbershops and got to the beauty shops, and tell them we’ve got more work to do,” he said. “Tell them we can’t wait to organize.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz125AvjRlX

Failed stimulus bill: $862, 000, 000, 000.

Health care 'reform': $1, 000, 000, 000, 000.

Making yourself the new Civil Rights Movement™: Priceless.

**Xiahou** · 10-12-2010, 05:08

Flailing.
I guess the thinking is- we can't run on our record, so let's make a bunch of stuff up. If they can sling enough mud, maybe some of it will stick.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-12-2010, 12:09

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Flailing.
I guess the thinking is- we can't run on our record, so let's make a bunch of stuff up. If they can sling enough mud, maybe some of it will stick.

It's worked in the past -- and both major parties have played this particular "card."

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-24-2010, 01:44

More interesting polling...

(CNN) - Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

"Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush's name while campaigning this year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.