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

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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."
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    nikiloknikilok Posts: 383member
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 47
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 47
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    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 ...
  • Reply 5 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 47
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Thats probably the best way to deal with it.

    I was looking at it from a wider perspective that needn't be considered.
  • Reply 7 of 47
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    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!

  • Reply 8 of 47
    ochymingochyming Posts: 474member

    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.

  • Reply 9 of 47
    ochymingochyming Posts: 474member

    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?

  • Reply 10 of 47
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    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.

  • Reply 11 of 47
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member
    drblank wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 47
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    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?

  • Reply 13 of 47
    All I gotta say is... one way or another, at the end of the day, we are (or will be) screwed.
  • Reply 14 of 47
    jgutherjguther Posts: 97member

    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?



    This is an incredibly ignorant position. You are using the exact same argument as the Nazis back in 1936. Unbelievable and depressing.

  • Reply 15 of 47
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    nikilok wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 47
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    drblank wrote: »
    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?

    LMAO. You belong writing government propaganda. Grow up, nazi boy.
  • Reply 17 of 47
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member
    drblank wrote: »
    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 does?t 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.
  • Reply 18 of 47
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member


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

  • Reply 19 of 47

    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.

  • Reply 20 of 47
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    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.
    drblank wrote: »
    I don't know about anything that i can't do now that I used to do 25 years ago.

    Think harder?
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.