or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › President Obama reportedly talks government surveillance with Apple's Cook, tech leaders
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama reportedly talks government surveillance with Apple's Cook, tech leaders

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
According to a report from Politico, President Barack Obama met with a host of technology executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, and civil rights leaders on Thursday to discuss government surveillance activities, a hot button issue as of late.



The meeting was held behind closed doors, sources told POLITICO, and was the second such high-level talk regarding government surveillance issues this week. The White House declined to reveal topics discussed in the meeting, as did those who attended.

Cook was joined by AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, Google's chief Internet evangelist and legendary computer scientist Vint Cerf, and Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn. Also present were representatives from the Center for Democracy and Technology, the sources said.

According to an anonymous White House aide, the meetings are seen as part of a larger initiative that seeks to find balance between the government's counterterrorism policies and personal privacy.

?This is one of a number of discussions the administration is having with experts and stakeholders in response to the president?s directive to have a national dialogue about how to best protect privacy in a digital era, including how to respect privacy while defending our national security,? the person said.

Thursday's meeting wasn't the first time President Obama has reached out to industry leaders, or Cook specifically, for input on matters of policy. In 2012, the President called Cook, along with a few other top business executives, to discuss the so-called "fiscal cliff."
post #2 of 45
I believe, surveillance is necessary to an extend to ensure people can enjoy better security.
However its also important to be responsible with this and not misuse it.
post #3 of 45
If by national dialogue, he means secret meetings with corporate CEO's, then **** Obama. If I had known that he would view me as a possible threat, deserving to be spied upon, I would have voted for McCain.

Goddammit there is no justice in this world.
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post

If by national dialogue, he means secret meetings with corporate CEO's, then **** Obama. If I had known that he would view me as a possible threat, deserving to be spied upon, I would have voted for McCain.

Goddammit there is no justice in this world.

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but you would be spied on the same or more with McCain. All this stuff didn't just start with Obama, it just expanded on his watch.

First, this stuff had started BEFORE FISA was changed to make it legal.
Second, Congress and the Senate changed FISA in a backhanded way to make it legal [after a bunch of revisions with wording that would add more limitations on what the NSA could do, right before it was to be voted on, someone changed the final revision to use wording greatly expanding what they could do, something along the lines of changing "you can do X, if both Y and Z are true" to "you can do X, if either Y or Z are true"]
Third, it's not like Obama is driving this stuff. People in the NSA come up with ideas, and may or may not get approval from the Executive branch before proceeding (in this case, they needed it, because do it requires large buckets of money).

Simply put, the NSA has to be disbanded. It's basic culture has been one of violating the law for much of it's existence, without any consequences.
post #5 of 45
If you don't or can't trust national security services to do their job and put in place laws that restrict them, effectively rendering them useless, then who does the monitoring and analysis ?

Should there none ? There has to be something or someone that can be trusted to do this job.

Would the onus of monitoring and analysis be in the hands of private corporations, like Apple or Google ? Any flags then to be passed on to government agencies ? That scenario would breach any number of existing laws Id imagine. Plus it would place them in a direct conflict of interest.

idk what answer is to this as it questions on an international scale many philosophies that differ between countries.

Catch 22 ...
Edited by RobM - 8/9/13 at 12:39am
post #6 of 45
If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it is up to the people, not the government. Violation of our constitutional rights needs to be more jealously defended and when those in government are found to be violating, people need to be fired and/or jailed immediately.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 45
Thats probably the best way to deal with it.

I was looking at it from a wider perspective that needn't be considered.
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post

If by national dialogue, he means secret meetings with corporate CEO's, then **** Obama. If I had known that he would view me as a possible threat, deserving to be spied upon, I would have voted for McCain.

Goddammit there is no justice in this world.

 

Why are you posting here when you still haven't found those droids!

post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I believe, surveillance is necessary to an extend to ensure people can enjoy better security.
However its also important to be responsible with this and not misuse it.

 

 

In a country where political dogmas are more important than facts?

It is hard to achieve that balance.

post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post

If by national dialogue, he means secret meetings with corporate CEO's, then **** Obama. If I had known that he would view me as a possible threat, deserving to be spied upon, I would have voted for McCain.

Goddammit there is no justice in this world.

 

 

I doubt you voted Obama. And since when his 2008 opponent voiced opposition to said surveillance?

post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post

If by national dialogue, he means secret meetings with corporate CEO's, then **** Obama. If I had known that he would view me as a possible threat, deserving to be spied upon, I would have voted for McCain.

Goddammit there is no justice in this world.

THis would have happened with McCain or Romney or anyone else. This stuff was already in the works with Bush when the Iraq war started.  They are going after serious threats, they don't have the resources to go after every little Tom, Dick, and Loser out there.  Remember, they have to get a court order, which Apple had mentioned in this Press Release and they guessitmated about the same number of court orders that were issued and they mentioned that they are concentrating out people outside the country, so they are just trying to protect against Terrorist attacks. 


Don't be stupid or delusional about this.

 

I think you need to take a chill pill.  Unless you are terrorist.  Are you a terrorist?  If not, then chill out.

post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

THis would have happened with McCain or Romney or anyone else. This stuff was already in the works with Bush when the Iraq war started.  They are going after serious threats, they don't have the resources to go after every little Tom, Dick, and Loser out there.  Remember, they have to get a court order, which Apple had mentioned in this Press Release and they guessitmated about the same number of court orders that were issued and they mentioned that they are concentrating out people outside the country, so they are just trying to protect against Terrorist attacks. 


Don't be stupid or delusional about this.

I think you need to take a chill pill.  Unless you are terrorist.  Are you a terrorist?  If not, then chill out.

Since the dawn of politics, government has always tried to restrain the freedom of its population.

Through fear, through abuse, through haphasard taxation, through snitching, ...

The US administration is playing the fear card to the fullest. Their motives may not coïncide but Al Queda and the US administration are objective allies. I'm not going to say that AQ had won, but it is clear that the population has lost what should be it's dearest holding: freedom.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


Since the dawn of politics, government has always tried to restrain the freedom of its population.

Through fear, through abuse, through haphasard taxation, through snitching, ...

The US administration is playing the fear card to the fullest. Their motives may not coïncide but Al Queda and the US administration are objective allies. I'm not going to say that AQ had won, but it is clear that the population has lost what should be it's dearest holding: freedom.

 

Well, there are people, groups of people that want to terrorize other countries, people, etc.  The Government has entities that research terrorist threats to eliminate those threats.  There's a lot of people in this world to monitor and they are doing what part of tax dollars do, but they aren't going after every single person, but they have methods for finding these people to remove the threat to protect our freedom.


So, list the freedom's that have been eliminated?


Can you go outside?  Yes.

Can you start your own business if you have enough money?  Yes.

Can you do the same things you USED to do before the 9/11 attacks?  Yes.

 

I don't know about anything that i can't do now that I used to do 25 years ago.


The only MAJOR change is that we have to go through a scanning process at the airport and other places where security is a concern and we can't take certain items on the plane.

 

And?  What's your problem?  You don't want your phones tapped?  Well, if you aren't doing anything suspicious or illegal then, you probably have NOTHING to worry about.

 

I think you watch too much TV, read the wrong paranoid articles, books, or listen to a bunch of paranoid people that spout their own line of BS to get attention.

 

Other countries have had more security at airports and other places long before this country, but those are isolated places where terrorists are likely to go to take control over a plane.


So what is bothering you?

post #14 of 45
All I gotta say is... one way or another, at the end of the day, we are (or will be) screwed.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I believe, surveillance is necessary to an extend to ensure people can enjoy better security.
However its also important to be responsible with this and not misuse it.
You must watch a lot of television.
post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Well, there are people, groups of people that want to terrorize other countries, people, etc.  The Government has entities that research terrorist threats to eliminate those threats.  There's a lot of people in this world to monitor and they are doing what part of tax dollars do, but they aren't going after every single person, but they have methods for finding these people to remove the threat to protect our freedom.


So, list the freedom's that have been eliminated?


Can you go outside?  Yes.
Can you start your own business if you have enough money?  Yes.
Can you do the same things you USED to do before the 9/11 attacks?  Yes.

I don't know about anything that i can't do now that I used to do 25 years ago.


The only MAJOR change is that we have to go through a scanning process at the airport and other places where security is a concern and we can't take certain items on the plane.

And?  What's your problem?  You don't want your phones tapped?  Well, if you aren't doing anything suspicious or illegal then, you probably have NOTHING to worry about.

I think you watch too much TV, read the wrong paranoid articles, books, or listen to a bunch of paranoid people that spout their own line of BS to get attention.

Other countries have had more security at airports and other places long before this country, but those are isolated places where terrorists are likely to go to take control over a plane.


So what is bothering you?

You might think your thinking is is flawless.
It isn't.

I'd like to bring you to one of the most well known quotrd relating to peace as you'll immediatly notice the correlation.
Indeed, just as peace is not the absence of war, freedom is not the absence of emprisonment. Both are "a state of mind".

You provide the flaw in your reasoning yourself (in your 5th paragraph).
If I don''t do something suspicious or illegal, then I probably have nothing to fear about.

Who is defining illegal and suspicious? A government that runs illegal prisons? A government that tortures? A government that gathers illegal courtrooms? A government that doesńt abide to international institutions like the Court of La Hague?

I'm sorry to tell, but you sound incredibly naive to me. Mind you, i didn't even touch your "probably". You had me at suspicious already.
post #17 of 45

Obama's Holder is spying on Apple and the book publisher's as we type.

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post



Would the onus of monitoring and analysis be in the hands of private corporations, like Apple or Google ?

 

 

While I agree with your overall sentiments it's important to keep in mind that Snowden was working for a private corporation (Booze, Allen, Hamilton) before he defected. Apparently the NSA already contracts the monitoring function of its surveillance to private corporations.

 

What I would really like to know is how deeply involved comsumer tech companies were in this whole surveillance scheme. That question hasn't been fully explored by anyone yet. I suspect that if the true nature of that involvement were known it would have very negative consequences for the companies involved.

post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it is up to the people, not the government. Violation of our constitutional rights needs to be more jealously defended and when those in government are found to be violating, people need to be fired and/or jailed immediately.

I'm surprised more states don't just cite the 10th amendment and ignore what the government has been doing as of late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I don't know about anything that i can't do now that I used to do 25 years ago.

Think harder?
Quote:
And?  What's your problem?  You don't want your phones tapped?  Well, if you aren't doing anything suspicious or illegal then, you probably have NOTHING to worry about.

Go away, Eric Schmidt. This is in no way a valid response to any ethical argument.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I think you need to take a chill pill.  Unless you are terrorist.  Are you a terrorist?  If not, then chill out.

Wait...It's 2013 and people STILL use this argument?

._.
post #21 of 45

The argument for the database dismantling is more on the order of it being ineffective. Their shining trophy is some Somali guy who apparently sent $7,500 back home to support his tribespeople in their fight against Ethiopia and Ethiopia's backers (meaning us). 

 

Oh and BTW collecting and storing business records for some future, court approved process search, isn't any sort of "Constitutional" violation.

post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

The argument for the database dismantling is more on the order of it being ineffective. Their shining trophy is some Somali guy who apparently sent $7,500 back home to support his tribespeople in their fight against Ethiopia and Ethiopia's backers (meaning us). 

Oh and BTW collecting and storing business records for some future, court approved process search, isn't any sort of "Constitutional" violation.

We aren't even talking about "business records".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

The argument for the database dismantling is more on the order of it being ineffective...

 

 

 

Agree.

 

The most egregious example being the Boston Marathon bombing. That was a complete, total intelligence and policing failure. Had some common bloke not stepped out his back door to smoke a cigarette, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have never been captured. Dave Henneberry was technically violating the city's lock down order when he walked outside his house to smoke and discovered where the bomber was hiding. Henneberry was subject to arrest just for being outside.

 

Remind me again…How much do we spend on our intelligence services and militarizing our police departments? In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing we had a very low rate of return on whatever that figure is.

post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


We aren't even talking about "business records".

Actually when you talk about the NSA, largely you are. The cell phone metadata falls under the business records section of the legislation, information the various cellphone providers record for their business purposes... the problem as NSA sees it (as I understand the argument), is the providers don't store the records for a length of time that's optimal for the NSA's purposes: hence the archiving.

 

It's under section 215.

"Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations (50 U.S.C. sec. 1861)"

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149791922/National-Security-Agency-Section-702-of-FISA-and-Section-215-of-PATRIOT-Act-Fact-Sheets


Edited by jfc1138 - 8/9/13 at 11:11am
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

Actually when you talk about the NSA, largely you are. The cell phone metadata falls under the business records section of the legislation, information the various cellphone providers record for their business purposes... the problem as NSA sees it (as I understand the argument), is the providers don't store the records for a length of time that's optimal for the NSA's purposes: hence the archiving.

I now understand what you meant.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

…they don't have the resources to go after every little Tom, Dick, and Loser out there.  Remember, they have to get a court order

 

Don't be stupid or delusional about this.

 

I think you need to take a chill pill.  Unless you are terrorist.  Are you a terrorist?  If not, then chill out.

 

First, today isn't the issue. It's tomorrow. Imagine someone worse than Bush/Cheney taking power, and abusing the hell out of all this nicely gathered, institutionalized surveillance data. Even worse than today. Today, we are institutionalizing it, marginalizing it, making it "the new normal". Tomorrow, it's Nazi Germany or worse all over again. Don't think for a second it can't happen here.

 

Second, they aren't "going after" every T, D & L, so long as they stay in line. But wait until they "petition for a redress of grievances", or gather in protest, or try to form a political group, or run for office.  Then the innocuous, harmless, background files come to the forefront. Leverage. Character assassination. Public humiliation. Or worse. You name it. They will have all the ammunition they need. That 'pink underwear fetish' you thought no-one knew about? Uh-huh.

 

Privacy matters. Because none of us is perfect, all of us have foibles, we ALL have something that can be used against us, even if it isn't something particularly bad or even uncommon. The totalitarian states in recent history have proved this. It begins by dividing and polarizing us, and setting us suspiciously against each other. The rest is easy.

 

So don't tell us to chill. "Terrorism" is a premise being used to erode, reduce and diminish our civil liberties. Period. There are other ways to deal with the "threats", but these are the methods preferred (by the power+control minded set). Perhaps less expedient, perhaps more costly, perhaps even less effective overall. But I will not give up my freedom and liberty, not one speck of it, to gain a better "false sense of security". 

 

I'm neither stupid nor delusional. I've played on the inside of that game. If anything, I'd say back to you, don't be ignorant and contrary when you don't know enough about what you speak. Your Orwellian "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" statement shows you seriously haven't applied enough intellect to this. Or, you work for the other side.

post #27 of 45
Obama is a fake.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I think you need to take a chill pill.  Unless you are terrorist.  Are you a terrorist?  If not, then chill out.

And I think you should do some research before jumping the gun and making such statements.

Are you familiar with Blackstone's formulation? It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Many Western justice systems abide by that (at least that's what they say).

 

Are you also familiar with the case of Maher Arar? The Syrian-Canadian who was tortured for over a year in a Syrian prison only to turn out that he done nothing wrong.

 

When it comes to data-mining and spying, I'd rather put my fate in principles such Blackstone's, than some loose interpretation as yours.

post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I believe, surveillance is necessary to an extend to ensure people can enjoy better security.

Security from what? The government can't protect you. And it certainly can't protect you by taking away your freedom and privacy rights. Those things are the most sacred. That's what needs protecting. If that's what they say they have to do to "protect" you then the terrorists have already won. The best thing America could do to protect you is to stop dropping bombs on foreign countries and starting countless wars. All they are doing is creating enemies. Ron Paul had the right idea. Bring ALL the fucking American troops home from every country and save billions and get the American economy moving again. That's the best way to ensure security for America. Save money, concentrate on innovation, get everyone back to work and create friends around the world, not enemies. It's really common sense when you think about it.

http://youtu.be/e0hO5fTGwPY
Edited by Ireland - 8/9/13 at 1:07pm
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it is up to the people, not the government. Violation of our constitutional rights needs to be more jealously defended and when those in government are found to be violating, people need to be fired and/or jailed immediately.

What laws?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #31 of 45
"Behind closed doors". Says it all really.
These clowns just don't get it...
Obalma should be engaging with the people on such an important topic... How weak...
post #32 of 45
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post
Obama is a fake.

 

You know, when I was living in Ireland, in the last few months leading up to the election, all I got was, "What'd'cha think of Obama?" this and "Oh, Obama, isn't he grand?" that. Suppose it was because I'm an American. Anyway, then two days before the election, I go and get the Times and what do I find? This.

 

 

Kept it, all these years.

 

From your comment, I believe it's safe to say the infatuation has worn off, eh? lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #33 of 45
For me it did. Promised the next JFK, got the next GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You know, when I was living in Ireland, in the last few months leading up to the election, all I got was, "What'd'cha think of Obama?" this and "Oh, Obama, isn't he grand?" that. Suppose it was because I'm an American. Anyway, then two days before the election, I go and get the Times and what do I find? This.




Kept it, all these years.

From your comment, I believe it's safe to say the infatuation has worn off, eh? lol.gif
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You know, when I was living in Ireland, in the last few months leading up to the election, all I got was, "What'd'cha think of Obama?" this and "Oh, Obama, isn't he grand?" that. Suppose it was because I'm an American. Anyway, then two days before the election, I go and get the Times and what do I find? This.

 

 

Kept it, all these years.

 

From your comment, I believe it's safe to say the infatuation has worn off, eh? lol.gif

 

Nice. Hang on to that one! :D

 

The potential was (and still is) always there. I'm probably among those who feel he hasn't quite lived up to it though.

 

Some of the more draconian measures being revealed lately indicate he may be an even greater disappointment than most. I'm hoping he turns that around. Only time will tell. I'm remaining in a neutral 'holding pattern' about all of it for the time being. 

 

Enough politics. How about those surveillance issues…?

post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

What laws?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!

Yeah, we actually do need laws.  Laws, especially when enforced creates order amongst societies of people.  Without laws, we have anarchy.

 

You don't like laws unless someone violates your civil rights, and then you want them. That would be a 1 way street. 

 

A free for all existence might seem nice to some, but it's not a safe environment because the a-holes would then bully around those that like to live with some civility.  we kind of have that today, but at least there is a legal/law enforcement system to minimize it.

post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Nice. Hang on to that one! 1biggrin.gif

The potential was (and still is) always there. I'm probably among those who feel he hasn't quite lived up to it though.

You can't be on both sides. Potential? He's an out and out liar and a failure. All of the promises he made were lies. He's worse than Bush. Why can't you see that?

Yeah, 200 more drones and he'll be Jesus.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Yeah, we actually do need laws.  Laws, especially when enforced creates order amongst societies of people.  Without laws, we have anarchy.

We were both being ironic. The rule of law for Presidents, politicians bankers and wankers died in 2001. Not in Iceland though.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

We were both being ironic. The rule of law for Presidents, politicians bankers and wankers died in 2001. Not in Iceland though.

Correct.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #40 of 45
Well may be it is necessary within the confines of an open and interpretable law. The issue is that I am not a citizen of he the USA, so any amendments and restrictions that are put in place to protect USA citizens will to not have any effect on the unrestricted access to my data stored in vast data centres ran Apple and any other US companies.
The danger of this is iCloud.....a foreign power (who has no juristriction over me-therefore no different to Russia or China In my eyes) has access to my location (find my phone), has access to my thought (Notes), my contacts, and the work that I am doing (iWorks).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › President Obama reportedly talks government surveillance with Apple's Cook, tech leaders