Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hillary Clinton: "We Need To Talk Sensibly About Spying"

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the watching-the-watchers dept.

Privacy 461

dryriver writes "The Guardian reports: 'Hillary Clinton has called for a "sensible adult conversation", to be held in a transparent way, about the boundaries of state surveillance highlighted by the leaking of secret NSA files by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. In a boost to Nick Clegg, the British deputy prime minister, who is planning to start conversations within government about the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies, the former US secretary of state said it would be wrong to shut down a debate. Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be."'"

cancel ×

461 comments

"what is necessary to be done" (4, Interesting)

TheResilientFarter (3216187) | about 10 months ago | (#45114919)

"as transparent as it can be"
"with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be"

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 10 months ago | (#45114965)

If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree.

James Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's activities and there are no repercussions.

How about we start with that? If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114983)

"What I said was true...from a certain point of view..."

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115007)

"It all depends on what your definition of is is."

Evidently politicians have a different dictionary from us peons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 [youtube.com]

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115051)

"I see. Well, thank you for your candor. You're fired."

Edit: Add to this, my captcha: http://imgur.com/MYwNMSc

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#45114995)

This. Rules and oversight are meaningless if they cannot or will not be enforced. Break the rules and/or lie to congress = go directly to jail. Or should be. The problem is that legislators do no take our privacy seriously at all; they just keep telling us we have nothing to hide. This call for new rules and oversight is just a smoke screen.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115099)

And all of you clueless Obama-loving lberal weenies will still vote for her next election, essentially continuing and expanding the police-state regime of Grand Benevolent Dictator Baraq Hussein Sotero. Keep lickin' those boots, nanny-statists. It's only a matter of time before you're replaced by cheap Mexicans, and when your dole runs out, the fires of revolution will be stoked in your hearts. Then you will know what we're talking about here, the topic of conversation, which is to kick all Mexicans out of America.

Mexicans are an urban blight - they cram 4 generations into a 2-bedroom house and breed like roaches, and those little cucarachas grow up to rob and tag the neighborhood. Mexicans moving into the neighborhood will cause your property values to sink like stones. They are loud, obnoxious, lecherous beasts.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 10 months ago | (#45115151)

Nice try. Now hustle on back to your hidden forum on dailykos (or whichever fever swamp you hail from) and tell them what a good job you did pretending to be a conservative. They'll all agree you did a fine job of reinforcing stereotypes.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115173)

I've lived near the Mexican border my entire life, and I know a few things about stereotypes being true. Your post implies that what I said about Mexicans is not true, but that's probably because you're a white or Indian (aka "Silicon Valley House Nigga") living in a gated community near Sunnyvale.

What do you have to say about that, mister? Ha! Damn I'm good.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 10 months ago | (#45115251)

> And all of you clueless Obama-loving lberal weenies will still vote for her next election,

With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice. One does not have to "love" Obama at all in order to realize just how TRULY BAD the alternatives are.

Obama is in office because of that fact.

I will reprhase that: Obama is in office because neocons refuse to stop drinking their own kool-aid and acknowledge that they are a minority in the electorate.

The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (-1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#45115445)

Obama is in office because of that fact.

Obama is in office because of his skin color.

If a white guy with his experience had been running in the primary, Hillary would have beat him soundly. He was not ready to be chief executive of anything, let alone an entire country.

With that being said, I did vote for him in 2008. Part of the reason was his skin color. In the sense that it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (3, Insightful)

chihowa (366380) | about 10 months ago | (#45115447)

The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.

...but keeps voting for them anyway (even going so far as to defend them now and again).

So why exactly is the big stupid middle not to be reviled just like the extremes? The outcome of all three groups' actions is exactly the same.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 10 months ago | (#45115523)

The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.

Where is this extreme left wing minority? If you think that Obama is left wing, all I can say is wow, just wow. In any other western country, Obama would probably be considered moderate right-wing or perhaps centrist.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (3, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 10 months ago | (#45115245)

If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).

I agree that if the director feels he has to lie, then those are appropriate responses. If he actually does lie, meaning he intentionally and knowingly deceives Congress, then he should be prosecuted for perjury.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (3, Insightful)

crakbone (860662) | about 10 months ago | (#45115503)

It should not be Perjury. It should be treason.

Re: "what is necessary to be done" (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45115527)

Nope. Not treason. That has a very specific definition in the constitution. It's perjury. That is a serious enough offense and appropriate for that specific level of malfeasance.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#45115305)

"If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree."

I agree in principle, but I don't agree with Clinton. Why?

Because SHE is wholly involved in the current web of lies. Remember Benghazi. And ask yourself how she could have announced the death of certain people at the embassy 15 minutes before it happened.

Then ask yourself why, when asked about Benghazi in a Congressional hearing, she sidestepped the questions by throwing up her hands and shouting, "What does it matter NOW?"

I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for the first cockroach as President before I would vote for her.

You can't have one of the liars running the "open discussion" and then pretend that it's really open. You'd just be wasting everybody's time. Or worse.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#45115335)

By the way, Mrs. Clinton: it DOES matter now. And if you are planning to run for President, it isn't going to go away. [cnsnews.com]

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (4, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#45115469)

That's up to congress. They could have issued a contempt citation, have the Sargent of Arms of the Senate arrest Clapper, have him tried on the floor and have him imprisoned. That's the proper procedure. They didn't care.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#45115067)

Whenever a politician says "We need to have a conversation" it means that they want to avoid taking a position on the issue until they know which way the wind is blowing. It is easier to bend when you have no spine.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115235)

Well yes, that's how it's supposed to work after all. The blowing wind is the will of the people. As democratically elected leader of the free world, the president SHOULD be seeking to take the position that the people want. 8 years of Bush thinking he knew what was best for you is largely what got us into this mess.

Conservative logic, government so small it can crawl up your ass and control you like a sockpuppet.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

bluelip (123578) | about 10 months ago | (#45115293)

Anonymous Coward? "Blind One Who Leeches" is more accurate.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

bluelip (123578) | about 10 months ago | (#45115279)

"We need to have a conversation" also means I don't want to be asked why I've screwed up. Benghazi still does matter.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (5, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 10 months ago | (#45115303)

In particular, Hillary Clinton said "we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK". Now, what did she mean with that remark, and would it be similar to the meaning that the common person might assign to it?

From ancient Greek demos + kratos, democracy [wiktionary.org] = rule by the people.

One suspects that what the rulers and would-be rulers mean is closer to autocracy [wikipedia.org] = rule over the people, coupled with the assertion that if the people don't actively resist (via rebellion), then they tacitly accept [wikipedia.org] the whims of their rulers.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115155)

What good is a spy agency if everyone knows what they are doing and how to avoid them?

It is pointless, and plays right into the libertarians (Snowden, Paul supporters) hands that we don't need to collect taxes to fund them if they can't do anything.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 months ago | (#45115437)

Straw. No one is saying 'everyone' should know. "Can't do anything" is a fairly accurate description of them right now as pertains to their actually stopping their presumed targets: terrorists.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115271)

So that would Be 'None' in both cases ie. There can be None.

Re:"what is necessary to be done" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115275)

translations....

"oversight" will be performed by people in, or with ties to, the government that is hell bent on doing whatever they can get away with.

"citizens' understanding" is when the government says 'this is how it is gonna be, deal with it', or just does stuff without telling anyone.

"transparency" is when the government does stuff you can't see or don't know about, not about being open with information.

Words (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114929)

Just fucking words. From the mouth of a presidential hopeful. I can't think of anything more meaningless.

Re:Words (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115309)

Not just any words. Those are accusations. Clinton accuses us of being hysteric. Whenever a politician demands a "sensible" or "adult" debate, they're trying to discredit their opposition by implying that the debate was not sensible or adult before said politician called the opposition to order.

Re:Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115383)

Well said. Mod up.

Ultimately, about what the Constitution MEANS. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114931)

"We need to talk sensibly about violating our own charter, repeatedly, then attempting to hide it all under the guise of some unending war on terror."

Re:Ultimately, about what the Constitution MEANS. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115023)

I'm pretty sure we've always been at war with East Asia.

Such Hubris... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114933)

She was IN CHARGE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT while this was going on...

"Let's talk about what I was doing in an adult manner... And if you vote for me in 2016... I promise not to do what I did in 2010..."

Re:Such Hubris... (3, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115033)

I don't think that's what she meant. I read no promise to do better in that statement at all.

Re:Such Hubris... (2)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45115079)

I don't think that's what she meant. I read no promise to do better in that statement at all.

Oh, I assure you, it was a promise to "do better". Not a promise to do less.

It was a promise to sit you down like a school child and tell you what the rules are.

Re:Such Hubris... (0, Troll)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 10 months ago | (#45115101)

She'll get elected anyways. We elected the current turd sandwich that we have right now because too many people felt guilty about not ever having a president with black skin. Now that there's a supposed war on women going on right now, too many people will feel guilty that no president has ever had a vagina, so sure as shit we'll get a giant douche.

Re:Such Hubris... (2)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about 10 months ago | (#45115175)

We elected the current turd sandwich that we have right now because too many people felt guilty about not ever having a president with black skin.

I'd say the US elected whom they did because too many people didn't consider third party (and the second party didn't offer a credible alternative). Not to suggest that the current guy is doing a great job, but the US had a choice between him and a 72 year old with a Labrador for a running mate (the first time around). The second time around, the challenger's platform was "Don't ask about the specifics about our plans, you peasant! Just hear my rhetoric and grandstanding, and I'll say everything so just hear what you want to hear.". Unfortunately, all politicians tell you what they think the majority want to hear. Romney wanted to also say (in quick succession) what the minority wanted to hear.

Hell, I think the US should get Bill Clinton back (even if under a Hillary disguise) - he seems to be the best you've had in a while, and the current crop of hopefuls are a joke.

Re:Such Hubris... (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#45115183)

Wrong. We elected the current turd sandwich because at the time it wasn't apparent that he was a turd sandwich, but it was apparent that the alternative was a double-turd sandwich with a douche chaser.

Re:Such Hubris... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115237)

it was apparent to everyone who wasn't busy feeling like they had to vengeance-elect a democrat because they were tired of bush. he's a career politician who studied how to game the system. that's not exactly real credentials for leadership in any way.

Re:Such Hubris... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115253)

If Sarah Palin was a liberal, and said the same statements you wish to demonize here with now, you would be extolling her virtues. "Why of course you can see Russia from Alaska, they share a border." "Oh, so she wrote simple reminders on her hand rather than using cue cards. That's how resourceful this woman is!" "She was brave enough to choose to keep her child after learning it would have birth defects. She is the most compassionate choice to lead our nation."

She would be second only to Hillary in how smart and proficient a female politician can be.

Re:Such Hubris... (0)

HiThere (15173) | about 10 months ago | (#45115267)

Sorry, he's much worse than he appeared to be (the first time), but the only plausible alternative was worse.

P.S.: I *did* vote third party, but I was well aware that the structure of the electoral system meant that this was nearly a waste of time. I just couldn't stomach voting for either official choice. And I feel a compulsion to vote, even though I know it's nearly meaningless.

P.P.S.: On reflection I *do* think that Obama was worse then Bush, but only because he stood on the shoulders of giants.

Re:Such Hubris... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#45115333)

"Sorry, he's much worse than he appeared to be (the first time), but the only plausible alternative was worse."

Why are you saying sorry and then repeating what I said?

Re:Such Hubris... (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#45115401)

at the time it wasn't apparent that he was a turd sandwich

Next time try to pay attention.

Because it was pretty obvious Obama was going to be awful, all you had to do was read the full story instead of just the headline each time.

Re:Such Hubris... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 months ago | (#45115463)

Speak for yourself. I and many others pointed out his lack of anything during the first campaign here and elsewhere. If the best you can do is claim those who did not win would have been worse, you're conceding your argument is void.

Re:Such Hubris... (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#45115283)

Sorry, 15 yard penalty, bullshit on the field. We elected Obama because the right ran Thurston Howell the Third and Lovey and just like on the show they couldn't help but keep opening their mouths and showing the world what rich spoiled clueless dumbasses look like.

Which was YOUR favorite "See I'm rich, he heh" gaffe? I'd say the "47%" gaffe wouldn't even make the top 5, my personal favorites were from him "I had to drive an ugly car in High School!" Oh poor baby, didn't like the BRAND NEW LUXURY CAR that daddy gave you for your 16th BDay Mitt? And from her "We were so poor in college we had to live on our stock dividends!"...yeah, you are breaking my heart, it must have been soooo hard to live in that mansion daddy gave you and have to live on the piles of cash you were getting from the shitload of stock you and Mittens had before you had even graduated college. BTW want to know how many mansions daddy had given them before they graduated? FIVE, Mittens was stupid enough to brag about it at one of the fund raisers,just like he marveled about how them Chinese would practically kill each other to work for nothing. Smooth move rich retard.

So I'm sorry but the reason the right lost in 2008 and 2012 is the same reason they'll lose in 2016 and 2020, because they keep running candidates so fucking out of touch it hurts. You went from McSame, singing "Bomb Iran" while our troops are deployed in harm's way like its a fucking joke, to Thurston Howell the Third, and you watch in 2016, while the economy is in the crapper no less, they'll run....drumroll for dramatic effect.....Bobby "Fuck them poor bastards!" Jindal, guaranteed to let any dem just waltz right on in there.

Re:Such Hubris... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 10 months ago | (#45115113)

with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be

I can't think of a more condescending tone. I love how the state always knows best.

Re:Such Hubris... (4, Informative)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 10 months ago | (#45115369)

Dude,

The state department doesn't order the NSA around. It doesn't order the CIA around. It feeds the CIA intel, partly in the form of reports from State Department staff and partly in the form of reports from the governments they're working with; and uses Intel and tools from both, but it doesn't have any control over FISA.

We need proper intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114941)

Without the surveillance programs in place, we would be vulnerable to a snuke attack from the Brits.

Re:We need proper intelligence (4, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115039)

We have a surveillance program for the Brits. One if by land, two if by sea.

Re:We need proper intelligence (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45115087)

How many if by suitcase?

Re:We need proper intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115137)

How many if by snizz [wikipedia.org] ?

My spelling is horrible... (2)

jmd (14060) | about 10 months ago | (#45114953)

Do you spell bullshit with 1 L or 2? The totalitarian state will do as it pleases and have discussions to appease the masses.

Do you really think the people behind the sureillance will one day say "yea..i guess you are right we should not be doing this" to people, countries and businesses? That would be like the wall street bankers saying "yea..you are right..here is your money back"

Re:My spelling is horrible... (4, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115047)

Two L's. H-i-L-L-a-r-y.

Re:My spelling is horrible... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45115191)

Yeah, "we need to talk sensibly" is a way of saying, "I hope someone else talks about this."

Similar to when Obama says, "We need to have a national conversation about X" he means, "I hope you come around to my viewpoint after talking about it."

We need more intelligence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114955)

We need to find out for sure if Israel has a nuclear weapon and implement sanctions on them until they give up their program.

Re:We need more intelligence. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115059)

Yes, them jews have been blowing up shit all over the US. We need to watch them close.

Re:We need more intelligence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115387)

Admit it. You just hate Middle-Easterners. There's no need to insult the Israelis by calling them 'jews'.

Allawho Achbar.

Re:We need more intelligence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115439)

We already know they do. They also refuse to allow US inspection into their facilities, but demand that other countries (ie. their neighbors that they want to overtake) allow US inspection. Kind of silly and hypocritical, isn't it?

Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114959)

Sorry to have to say that. But the UK are a Constitutional Monarchy. She didnt frequented the Geopolitical classes?

Re:Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115375)

And the US is a republic not a democracy. The founding fathers were very clear - a democracy was unacceptable, having government at the mercy of the plebs was unthinkable. Big Business (represented by the founding fathers) had already sewn up the fledgling USA - why do think they had their "revolution" in the first place?

Re:Democracy? (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 10 months ago | (#45115389)

Sorry to have to say that. But the UK are a Constitutional Monarchy. She didnt frequented the Geopolitical classes?

Apparently all you learned about government you learned from computer games.

As long as actual political power is held by elected officials, and basic freedoms are respected, the country is considered a democracy. Constitutional Monarchies are almost always Democracies, because if the Constitution isn't Democratic the Monarch is almost always in charge. Republics are iffy, because all a "Republic" is a country with no hereditary head of state. That could be Hitler, or it could be Obama.

"We need to have a dialogue..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114969)

"Where I speak, you listen, and I shout you down when you try to speak your turn."
-Anyone who doesn't actually want to converse

No bitch. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45114971)

We need to stop doing it. Period. There's nothing to talk about.

Just don't do it.

Agreed... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 10 months ago | (#45114999)

. . . but given how hard it is for empires to break old habits, I doubt it is not realistic to expect the USA and/or GBR to stop now. It's just such a cornerstone of doing business at that level.

After all, when you drive down your street and a neighbor leaves their garage door open, you can't help but take a look, right?

Re:Agreed... (1)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45115119)

Taking a look in an open garage, is not the same thing as breaking in "just to take a look".
The same could be said for the front door of your house or apartment, or the door at the top of the basement stairs. You open that occasionally for public view too.

Re:No bitch. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#45115085)

Quit spying? What fantasy world are you living in? The problem here is that the spies are out of control. These assholes have decided they don't have to answer to anyone and are above any laws. When they lie to Congress they should go straight to fucking jail and throw the key away. This idea that the end justifies the means is the root of all sorts of evil. When people operate outside the law they are brigands and should be treated as such.

"Sensible adult conversation?" (1, Insightful)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 10 months ago | (#45114973)

The name Hillary Clinton does not belong in the same sentence with the phrase "sensible adult conversation."

Re:"Sensible adult conversation?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115505)

Which is why Bill decided to have some sensible adult conversations with Monica.

"sensible adult conversation" (0)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 10 months ago | (#45114987)

You people are worrying too much. Go and play out in the yard while the adults discuss and decide.
I.e. Clinton is just another politician, and we all know that politicians are scum. What comes to the top of society is the scum.

And, if elected as president in 2016, she'll be just like Obama, all "hope and change", and then, business as usual. Meet the new boss, same as the old one.

What Clinton whats is a continuation of the spying. But with transparency: we'll keep spying, but we'll tell you about it sometimes. And we'll pretend it's not really a big a deal as you think.

Now, joke time: What's the difference between the Republicunts and the Democunts? The Republicunts say "we are going to bomb you", and they do. The Democunts say "oh no, we'd never bomb you", but they do any way.
Updated version: The Republicunts: "we'll spy on you because terrorism, if you object, you're a terrorist". The Democunts: "you have nothing to fear from us spying on you, we're just after nasty bad people, you don't want those nasty bad people to get away with their evil crimes do you?". But they both spy on you. Because they are all fucking cunts who should be hung up by their necks until dead (only because they aren't worth the bullets).

Re:"sensible adult conversation" (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 10 months ago | (#45115171)

I.e. Clinton is just another politician, and we all know that politicians are scum. What comes to the top of society is the scum.

      She is not from the "top of society", she was an activist and real estate speculator from Arkansas who hitched her wagon to an even more egregious scumbag and held on for dear life.

    Her problem is that she is a liberal and a social climbing parasite, with stupid 60's hippie notions imprinted on her brain.

        Brett

it's too late for that (4, Insightful)

jdogalt (961241) | about 10 months ago | (#45114989)

The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...

It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge. I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties. I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.

Re:it's too late for that (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115111)

It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S.

Why do the sexual organs or skin color of the US President matter so much to you?

Re:it's too late for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115301)

Probably because it gives a perceived impression that they have been persecuted and thus are more likely to defend ones own rights and being. Reality is these people are paid for and the majority wouldn't haven't voted for them (bigotry is alive and well in America) had that not been the case. The question is merely whose willing to sell out first to get the job done of the big corporations and contributors. You don't necessarily have to donate the maximum to have maximum influence. What you have to have is people fund raising for a particular candidate (or multiples). So if I come from money and am limited to a specific amount donation to a candidate and I want to have greater influence with said candidate I need to talk to all my rich friends. That would result in me having more influence over a candidate than any of my rich friends because I'm the one who raised the money even if it didn't come out of my pocket directly.

While limiting individual and corporate donations is a worthwhile goal there are severe limitations in reality to what can be accomplished by it. It's effectively a smoke screen. They are pulling the wool over our eyes.

Re:it's too late for that (1)

Heretic2 (117767) | about 10 months ago | (#45115241)

The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...

The only straightforward and sensible conversation at this point can be about shutting it down, and how quickly we can shut it down. You cannot have a democracy in this environment where the public is left completely uninformed, the programs are shrouded in secrecy, and any attempt to unravel that secrecy is met with "National Security, go fuck yourself." Snowden was straight on point when he said we building a solution for "turnkey tyranny." Communism to the extreme, or Capitalism to the extreme all lead to totalitarianism with control and power centered in the hands of the very few. Look at Jeff Bezos--whose company is a HUGE government contractor--buying The Washington Post, one of the bigger critics and writing about the Spying State, I'm sure that was pure coincidence [bloomberg.com] , probably a childhood dream to own a newspaper right?

Look at the skill with which the NSA protects their own secrets, do you think they are protecting yours? Surely not, and more to the point, they use those against you. I'm sure there are a lot of good people that would run for office to solve this mess, if only the State didn't record every little detail of a person's life to use against them when they run for political office. Calling America a democracy is a farce, we're given the illusion of choice, there is no real choice anymore. It's all about control, State control, for "make happy benefit of monied interests" as Borat would say.

The President can keep a secret kill list of US Citizens, and execute that kill list with no oversight or transparency, all in the name of Terrorism or National Security. "Nation Security" is a term perverted far what it's actual meaning, all you have to do is "know something" they think you shouldn't know and the President can "arrange for an accident" [wikipedia.org] to happen to you. I'm not worried about "terrorists", I'm worried about my own government assassinating me.

Ask yourself, who gained the most from the events of 9/11? We need to roll all this back. And to the various Analysts parsing this post, do you really think you're doing a moral and ethical job? Do you think you're serving the good of the general citizenry or are you serving deep pockets? Do you really think The People would approve of what and how you're doing what you're doing if they knew all the details?

Not like there is any point in posting this "Anonymously."

Re:it's too late for that (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#45115371)

It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge.

First mistake. You have many choices to choose from. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.

I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties.

Second mistake. One party last fall had not only one female candidate, but two. Why not show them some support?

I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.

Both main parties are supporting this shit. Vote third party. Tell you friends you are voting third party, and why. Encourage them to vote their conscience too.

Hillary has no moral authority (2, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 10 months ago | (#45114993)

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Re:Hillary has no moral authority (5, Informative)

DarkTempes (822722) | about 10 months ago | (#45115385)

Indeed, I find her interest in discourse on the subject frightening because she's the official that ordered spying, including theft of credit card info, on UN officials.

Citation for the curious: Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats [wikipedia.org]

Piss off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115003)

"Sensible adult conversation". I can just smell the code words and duplicity. The whole subtext tautological loop of "Spying is necessary. This is the way things are so it is the way it has to be." You can tell by the approach that she is planning on defending the indefensible. The "Intelligence Community" (funny when we're they ever a community?) has a list of known crimes longer than your arm, let alone what we don't know yet. Look at every CIA toppling for resource interests or because they couldn't accept an election result. Look at all of the brutal dictators they brought to power, Pinochet. There can be no negotiation or successful regulation and reform of these monsters. They are a monster that needs to be destroyed for the good of the world.

Sensible Adult code words (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45115021)

She really means that the unwashed masses have to "educated" to shut up and accept it, which will take large amount of scare stories and perhaps some *cough* carefully engineered incidents to bring home the point that the function of government is to spy and watch over all aspects of society. For "It Takes a Village" Clinton to use the term "Adult Conversation" should fool no one.

The story, is without a single suggestion from either the British authorities or Clinton, that the spying should be reined in. Rather, everyone seems to suggest simply placed under more "political oversight" is the answer. But Politicians are the LAST people we would trust with oversight. They are the ones that got us into this mess.

And, at least in the US, the Judiciary can't be trusted either. We have judges who took oaths to defend the Constitution, approving whole sale monitoring of phone metadata [arstechnica.com] of every person in the US,yet again.

Why should judges, entrusted to protect us, be above the law? Why can't they be prosecuted or sued?

Is there anyone surprised by Clinton making obscure coded statements about a spying program that she would redouble? This is a very corrupt woman, who is politically ruthless. She left her minions twisting in the wind in Egypt, and if she gains a position from which she perceives the rest of us a "her children" she will assuredly not do a single thing to remove her parental control.

Re:Sensible Adult code words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115311)

So what do you suggest? Your comments seem to imply that you think that there shouldn't be any intelligence gathering at all. To me, that does not seem like an adult perspective, rather its the perspective of a 13 year-old middle-school child, angry without anything sensible to contribute to the discussion except raw emotion.

Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115027)

What kind of snow job (pun not intended) is this?

Hillary is not suitable any more than Kerry or Obama or McCain was. STOP repeating the media-parroted political party lines. The editors of /. are now part of the problem.

Re:Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115143)

Hillary will win easily if she runs in the Democratic primaries. The Democrats won't attack her like they did to Romney in the primary last year.

And when you can have Bill, Chelsea, Obama, and Michelle go all over the country to help get out the vote, it won't be very hard to see how there isn't another candidate that has that on the Democratic side.

The right is just very afraid that there will be 8 years of Hillary after Obama, and Hillary won't be anywhere near as nice as Obama has been.

Re:Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner? (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 10 months ago | (#45115295)

Hillary will win easily if she runs in the Democratic primaries. The Democrats won't attack her like they did to Romney in the primary last year.

What are you talking about? Romney was the general election opponent, running on the Republican ticket. He was never in the Democratic primaries.

And I'm not at all sure that Hillary's path to the 2016 nomination is assured. Hillary represents establishment neoliberalism, and much of the Democratic Party base has had enough of that. Remember, primary elections tend to attract an electorate that is a lot more partisan than that of general elections. If Elizabeth Warren runs, she could give Hillary a hard time, since her positions are closer to those of the Democratic Party base.

Adult conversation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115031)

So that everyone that disagree with warrantless spying can be called childish and excluded from the conversation?
Count me in.

Oversight by jury (2)

goodmanj (234846) | about 10 months ago | (#45115159)

Here's a proposal to try on for size. All covert surveillance with any domestic component must be approved by a secret court, with the decision made not by a professional judge, but by a citizen jury in an adversarial court setting. Now clearly the jury can't just be random dudes off the street, so how do you make sure they can be trusted with government secrets? They're selected by another jury, and if they agree to serve, they consent to total surveillance for a period of time during and after their service. These juries also select a people's advocate, who acts as a defense attorney and is required to argue against whatever the state is trying to do.

And now, presenting his majesty, cold fjord... (2)

hammyhew (2729501) | about 10 months ago | (#45115161)

Enough of this nonsense! We need these invasive spying programs so that we know what the terrorists are up to. I know you all like to live in a world of fantasy, where privacy and freedom are paramount, but this is the real world. When things like terrorism are on the table, it's time to put away the kids toys and talk like serious, mannered adults. A world where the government does not watch over our every move is unthinkable and completely unrealistic.

-- cold fjord

What is with you morons? Enough of this "privacy" talk; our very lives are at stake! How can you really expect to live in a world where the government does not know what you're doing? The government cannot possibly protect us from terrorism, or even revolution, if they do not see everything we do. Fortunately, it's only a matter of time until they can read our thoughts.

-- cold fjord

Stop! No more privacy! Privacy is a tool used by freedom fighters! Do you know what freedom fighters do? They fight against freedom! They're fuckin' terrorists! Get 'em boys!

-- cold fjord

The constitution is an enemy of the state, and should be treated like one.

-- cold fjord

Re:And now, presenting his majesty, cold fjord... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115493)

Uh-oh. Cold Fjord has a secret admirer. Someone's been watching him.

Everyone, all together:

Hammyhew and cold fjord sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love
Then comes marriage
Then comes Cold Ham
In a baby carriage.

more rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115167)

Why do we listen to politicians? We can see the puppet strings as clear as day.

You want to talk sensibly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115205)

Simple rule: friends do not spy on each other.

I agree. Let's talk sensibly. You STOP doing it. (2)

MikeDataLink (536925) | about 10 months ago | (#45115231)

I mean seriously. Just stop. It's that simple. Free country? Life? Liberty? Constitution? Remember all that stuff?

We need spies but big databases are no use. (4, Interesting)

Ckwop (707653) | about 10 months ago | (#45115277)

The world is not a perfect place. The West does need spies and it does need an infrastructure to support them and gather intelligence.

However, we should remember who we actually need to be spying on. Nation states, failed states, and yes terrorist training camps and what not.

What we should not be engaging in is dragnet surveillance where everyone is entered in to some giant database. This is a really bad idea for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the databases are not really likely to be that useful. Prism didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers. You might have every text, every phone call, every e-mail but if you can't spot the connections it doesn't help you.

Second, the massive database is a security risk in its own right. The NSA might think the Snowden leak is bad but it's child's play compared to what would happen if somebody leaks that database! You can bet your bottom dollar a shit-storm a 100% times the size would ensue. It might even threaten the agency's continued existence.

Third, the database could be hacked by a foreign governments. This in itself is a giant risk that dwarfs the one outlined in the second paragraph. China getting access to wiretaps on US businesses? Does no-one in the security community see what a giant hole they're making in the West's security?

This leads nicely to my fourth and final point. I do get the impression from the Snowden leaks that the competency of these organisations is being called in to question. It's clear they don't know what Snowden took; they don't know what he knows and what he doesn't. This is why he's catching them at so many lies. They make one statement, he leaks another document that shows them they're full of shit.

This final point is perhaps the most damning. They've built a giant system they can't audit! If they don't know what he took when he's just a fairly junior contractor, we have to assume other nation states have thoroughly penetrated the system and already stolen Western secrets!

They're clearly not competent enough to run such a system and it should be shut down on grounds of national security.

She's doesn't want to discuss real question (1)

guanxi (216397) | about 10 months ago | (#45115299)

(At least the article didn't quote her saying more, but maybe she did ...)

She's not asking, 'is this spying worth the loss of liberty and should we continue?', she's just saying we should take steps to make people more comfortable with it.

The serious conversation needs to be about the trade-off: People lose privacy, and eventually someone, even if not Obama or Hillary Clinton, will abuse the power to suppress political opposition and for other selfish purposes. Are the security gains worth all that harm? One consideration is that governments maintained security for thousands of years before they could spy so easily on everyone.

Security is important and I think we need to find a balance, not simplistic, all or nothing conclusions.

Just say "No" to spying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115319)

Just say "No" to spying, and then let's talk sensibly about drugs.

Catch up with the USSR (5, Insightful)

AndreyFilippov (550131) | about 10 months ago | (#45115355)

For the first 36 years of my life I lived in the USSR. It was un-free country, but many of us valued freedom and learned to love it more than the state religion - "Communism" that the government preached. When Bush started his war in Iraq as a retaliation to the 9/11, I noticed that with Patriot Act, "security" in the airports this country started to grow more and more similar to the failed state - Soviet Union. Some features that I believed to be unique trademarks of the totalitarian states sneaked in the everyday life of Americans. There was a government slogan in the USSR - "to catch up with and pass the USA", but now it seems that the USA is trying to catch up with the KGB-ish nature of the USSR. It is sad for me to see that many born-Americans believe that Freedom is given to them by God, by their brave predecessors or just by the Land they are born on. Freedom has to be fought for by every generation all over again, citizens have to prove they deserve it.
I would never vote for Republicans - for me they share much more with Soviets than just the red color, but when Obama (whom I voted for) calls Snowden a "traitor" (instead of a hero), I'm thinking that Putin in his place would do exactly the same. Putin, who's main enemies are Russian citizens.

Then you should be thanking Snowden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115365)

Snowden forced the "national debate" upon the country that the administration claimed it wanted, they should be thanking him if they truly wanted an open conversation about the government's massive abuses of power and consistent flouting of the law.

And hillary is one to speak, it must be nice to claim full responsibility for the deaths of your employees while also having to suffer no personal repercussions for it. No, this definitely isn't posturing and damage control from hillary "what difference does it make" clinton.

Just me? (5, Interesting)

Hairy1 (180056) | about 10 months ago | (#45115379)

Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending? Why is it that when a whistle blower identifies where the law has been violated, rather than a immediate and far reaching criminal investigation to identify and punish those responsible for breaking the law we see excuses and calls for "sensible adult conversation". There is no need for a negotiation. If I were to spy in this manner there would be no discussion; I would be prosecuted, imprisoned and possibly killed.

National Security is a weak cover for the abuse of power and gross violations of the highest law of the land. How can senior people get away with lying to Congress and not get thrown in jail for life? What does it say when people can lie like this, break the highest law, and face no consequences? No. Instead the whistle blowers are facing life in prison.

I didn't believe all the campaign promises of Obama, but to actually be worse than Bush takes some doing. The US is stuffed. Your 'democracy' was sacrificed many years ago; welcome to the Police State. What other country has tortured people for more than ten years - and now can only keep people alive - people who have not been charged much less given a trial - through forced feeding. The US is a grotesque parody of what it once stood for.

NSA = "No Such Agency" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115395)

I'm voting for the politician which credibly pledges to make it the truth.

When you work against your own people by sabotaging standards causing systems to be more vulnerable to attack, wholesale spy on your own people without merit and then slap them in the face by lies before congress and invocation of nonsensical distinctions between collection and use on balance replacing NSA or substantial restructuring seems prudent and necessary.

Having an adult conversation about the need to spy (or facilitate said spying by reciprocal agreements with foreign nations) on your own citizens is *NOT* up for debate.

That conversation has already happened (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45115451)

The only sensible talk about illegal and unconstitutional surveillance: a conversation that admits that it's wrong and demands it stop.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...