In an abrupt about face, presidential candidate Barack Obama has decided to throw his support behind the FISA compromise bill worked out between the white house and the democrat controlled congress after threatening to filibuster similar legislation earlier this year.
The original bill gathered controversy because it contained language modifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing for wiretaps to be ordered without warrants or judicial oversight. The bill also provided immunity to telecommunications companies who, in the past, have given phone records to the government without proper warrants or subpoenas. The revised legislation would not only make it legal for telecoms to do so in the future, but would also provide retroactive immunity against lawsuits filed against these companies for violating their customers privacy rights.
The first version of this bill was stonewalled in congress because of its controversial nature. This was when Obama stood strongly opposed to this legislation. Recently, a new version was proposed, created out of a compromise between republican and democrat leaders. This new version contains the same warrantless wiretapping provisions, but some change to the telecom immunity language. Under this version, the telecoms are only immune to lawsuits if they can prove that they were informed by the government that it was legal to turn over such records. Of course, the telecoms were told this, and the passing of this legislation would basically give the telecoms the immunity they were looking for, just in a round about way. The only thing the democrats really gained from this compromise was a chance to save face, a chance that Obama jumped for. However, civil liberties groups and some left leaning pundits aren’t buying it.
For the first time, Obama has angered a great deal of his far left supporters. Obama says that he is supporting the compromise and recognizes the need to pass this legislation in a timely manor. I call it a cop out and a flip flop. A bill is not a compromise when one side gets everything they asked for and the other side gives up everything they were standing up to fight against.
I understand why the Obama campaign has reversed its position; they are trying to move toward the center in order to get votes in key swing states. However, they have made a grave miscalculation. Trying to appeal to the center by running away from leftist positions is a failing strategy for Obama for several reasons.
One reason would be because he is up against McCain. If Obama wants to try to compare his record against McCain on reaching over the isle, he is going to lose the fight. McCain has many years of experience and a proven bipartisan voting record on issues like campaign finance and immigration. Obama just does not have the senate experience to back up his bipartisan claims. That is not to say the Obama would not work toward a “Purple America,” but when Obama’s record is put next to John McCain, Obama falls short and independent voters can see this. Running to the center will not help Obama catch independent voters.
Another problem with this strategy is funding. By running away from the left, Obama risks damaging his reputation with left wing supporters. McCain has the same problem with his far right supporters as well. The difference in the two candidates is how they plan on financing their campaigns. McCain is taking public financing money, while Obama will rely on individual donations. Obama has been setting record fundraising levels because of his grass-roots campaign style and small individual donations. If he starts alienating his base, those donations will dry up fast. One example is Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos website who has already said he plans of cutting back donations to Obama’s campaign now that Obama supports the new FISA legislation.
Finally, the Obama campaign has made the mistake of underestimating the values of independent voters. Independents and moderates tend to cast their ballots for a candidate, not a party. Integrity and trust are important issues, more important than some of the political posturing seen so commonly throughout the election season. By changing his position on the FISA legislation, Obama has compromised his leadership qualities. Facing off against McCain, who can be very firm in his beliefs, Obama’s ill-advised position swapping may be a very serious mistake that will hurt him with independents and moderates that he will need to win key swing states.
Whatever Obama’s reasons for changing his position and supporting the new FISA provisions for telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping, here is what the public will see: a candidate who has completely changed his position on a fundamental issue, a candidate who cannot be trusted, a candidate who cannot keep his campaign promises, and a candidate giving into political pressure instead of following his core beliefs. If Obama truly believes that turning his back on his strongest supporters is the way to win this election, we will be welcoming president McCain come November.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
UIGEA and the only too common congressional deception
There are two things that you are better off not knowing how they were made: laws and sausages. This famous quote cannot be attributed to any one person, but goes back centuries. There is some great wisdom behind it, but sometimes its better to know about what types of underhanded activities actually go into passing controversial laws.
There is one prime example that comes to mind, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This law prohibits financial organizations such as banks from processing transactions to internet gambling organizations, the effect of which blocks credit card and wire transfers from the gamblers to the casinos. Naturally, this type of law is somewhat controversial. Internet gamblers and poker players were angered, but additional resistance came from Banks who claim they do not have the ability to enforce this act and from oversees countries such as Antigua and England where some of these internet gambling corporations are based.
Yet despite the notoriously strong banking lobby, the UIGEA passed by unanimous vote in the senate and suffered only 2 votes against it in the house. Those numbers by themselves should raise some eyebrows, and it begs the question, how?
The UIGEA was attached as an amendment to the Safe Port Act of 2006. The Safe Port Act was designed to help improve security and customs protections in US ports, a measure that had extremely strong support in both houses of congress. It passed quickly in the House and Senate and went to a conference committee to iron out the small differences between the two versions of the bill. At this point, no one had heard any mention of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. That’s because it was added during the conference committee meetings.
After the conference committee, the act was sent back to congress for approval. The vote was rushed, knowing that many of the congressmen would not have time to review all 33,000 words of the Safe Port Act and might miss the UIGEA now attached. Also, there was not very much chance of debate or attempt to remove the amendment, and no one really wants to vote against the “Safe Port Act.”
Thus, the law was passed and congress effectively made most forms of internet gambling illegal (with exceptions for off-track horse race betting and fantasy sports leagues). The internet gambling community was stunned, the publicly traded stock of some internet casinos fell as much as 60%, and the American public remained for the most part unaware that any of this had happened.
This is probably my favorite example of a law being passed in some sort of underhanded or deceptive way. Whether or not this law should be passed, it at least deserves proper debate. What we really need from our government is openness. We can pretend that laws are like sausages and look the other way, or we can demand that our government stops these disingenuous practices. Is it any wonder why the vast majority of our country believes congress is doing a poor job, or that we do not trust our leaders?
There is one prime example that comes to mind, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This law prohibits financial organizations such as banks from processing transactions to internet gambling organizations, the effect of which blocks credit card and wire transfers from the gamblers to the casinos. Naturally, this type of law is somewhat controversial. Internet gamblers and poker players were angered, but additional resistance came from Banks who claim they do not have the ability to enforce this act and from oversees countries such as Antigua and England where some of these internet gambling corporations are based.
Yet despite the notoriously strong banking lobby, the UIGEA passed by unanimous vote in the senate and suffered only 2 votes against it in the house. Those numbers by themselves should raise some eyebrows, and it begs the question, how?
The UIGEA was attached as an amendment to the Safe Port Act of 2006. The Safe Port Act was designed to help improve security and customs protections in US ports, a measure that had extremely strong support in both houses of congress. It passed quickly in the House and Senate and went to a conference committee to iron out the small differences between the two versions of the bill. At this point, no one had heard any mention of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. That’s because it was added during the conference committee meetings.
After the conference committee, the act was sent back to congress for approval. The vote was rushed, knowing that many of the congressmen would not have time to review all 33,000 words of the Safe Port Act and might miss the UIGEA now attached. Also, there was not very much chance of debate or attempt to remove the amendment, and no one really wants to vote against the “Safe Port Act.”
Thus, the law was passed and congress effectively made most forms of internet gambling illegal (with exceptions for off-track horse race betting and fantasy sports leagues). The internet gambling community was stunned, the publicly traded stock of some internet casinos fell as much as 60%, and the American public remained for the most part unaware that any of this had happened.
This is probably my favorite example of a law being passed in some sort of underhanded or deceptive way. Whether or not this law should be passed, it at least deserves proper debate. What we really need from our government is openness. We can pretend that laws are like sausages and look the other way, or we can demand that our government stops these disingenuous practices. Is it any wonder why the vast majority of our country believes congress is doing a poor job, or that we do not trust our leaders?
Monday, June 9, 2008
The West Wing parallels the real world in the 2008 elections
If a nuclear power plant starts melting down in the continental US, I am going to be really freaked out.
A few years ago, one of my favorite shows on TV was the West Wing. I own the first 4 seasons on DVD, but I stopped watching after the 5th season. I guess I sort of lost interest in the writing. Then in 2006, after 7 seasons, the show was cancelled. Just last year I went back and watched the 7th season and was shocked about the parallels that can be drawn to this upcoming presidential election.
In the West Wing TV series, Republican Senator Arnold Vinick is running against the Democratic Congressman Matt Santos. But this fictional matchup is remarkably similar to the real life contest between Obama and McCain. Obama is a relatively young politician without as much experience in federal government as opposed to someone like McCain, who has been around for a very long time. Whereas the fictional Santos is also relatively young, having served very few terms in congress, facing Vinick, who is a spry for his age senator who has been around for decades. Oh, Santos is not black, he’s Hispanic.
Just on the superficial aspect along there are many similarities between the fictional election of the West Wing and the real life contest going on right now. But that’s not all. Vinick has trouble with the republican base because he is more of a moderate. Vinick also takes steps toward immigration reform that includes a guest worker program (much like the bill McCain took a lot of flack for last summer). The Santos campaign is historic because he is the first Hispanic to run for president, but Santos has trouble keeping the black vote. This is almost a mirror image of Obama who is historic for being black but has some trouble with the Hispanic vote.
Both Obama and Santos gave speeches about race and unity in the wake of controversy. For Obama it was Reverend Wright and for Santos it was a brown on black police shooting. The content of the speeches was different but the message was the same, that unity is achieved through perseverance, and that we still have many racial issues in this country left unresolved.
The more I watched of the 7th Season of West Wing the more I was amazed at the parallels between the show and real life. Obviously there were differences as well, especially with the policies of McCain and Vinick, but there were so many connections and similarities that it is hard to believe that the show ended years before Obama even declared that he was running for president.
In the end, Santos won the election because of a near catastrophe at a nuclear power plant that Vinick helped get approved. And since both Vinick and McCain are strong proponents of nuclear energy, should there be a nuclear power issue within months of this election, you will find me staring at whatever news source I was looking at with my mouth agape and my eyes wide.
None the less, all these connections are more curiosity than conspiracy, a couple of small coincidences mixed in with a few intelligent guesses. One thing is true, the writers of The West Wing, either by luck or skilled reasoning, pretty accurately predicted the republican and democratic candidates for this year’s election. But I think that is one of the reasons why I always liked that show; its ability to connect the world of fiction to the real world.
A few years ago, one of my favorite shows on TV was the West Wing. I own the first 4 seasons on DVD, but I stopped watching after the 5th season. I guess I sort of lost interest in the writing. Then in 2006, after 7 seasons, the show was cancelled. Just last year I went back and watched the 7th season and was shocked about the parallels that can be drawn to this upcoming presidential election.
In the West Wing TV series, Republican Senator Arnold Vinick is running against the Democratic Congressman Matt Santos. But this fictional matchup is remarkably similar to the real life contest between Obama and McCain. Obama is a relatively young politician without as much experience in federal government as opposed to someone like McCain, who has been around for a very long time. Whereas the fictional Santos is also relatively young, having served very few terms in congress, facing Vinick, who is a spry for his age senator who has been around for decades. Oh, Santos is not black, he’s Hispanic.
Just on the superficial aspect along there are many similarities between the fictional election of the West Wing and the real life contest going on right now. But that’s not all. Vinick has trouble with the republican base because he is more of a moderate. Vinick also takes steps toward immigration reform that includes a guest worker program (much like the bill McCain took a lot of flack for last summer). The Santos campaign is historic because he is the first Hispanic to run for president, but Santos has trouble keeping the black vote. This is almost a mirror image of Obama who is historic for being black but has some trouble with the Hispanic vote.
Both Obama and Santos gave speeches about race and unity in the wake of controversy. For Obama it was Reverend Wright and for Santos it was a brown on black police shooting. The content of the speeches was different but the message was the same, that unity is achieved through perseverance, and that we still have many racial issues in this country left unresolved.
The more I watched of the 7th Season of West Wing the more I was amazed at the parallels between the show and real life. Obviously there were differences as well, especially with the policies of McCain and Vinick, but there were so many connections and similarities that it is hard to believe that the show ended years before Obama even declared that he was running for president.
In the end, Santos won the election because of a near catastrophe at a nuclear power plant that Vinick helped get approved. And since both Vinick and McCain are strong proponents of nuclear energy, should there be a nuclear power issue within months of this election, you will find me staring at whatever news source I was looking at with my mouth agape and my eyes wide.
None the less, all these connections are more curiosity than conspiracy, a couple of small coincidences mixed in with a few intelligent guesses. One thing is true, the writers of The West Wing, either by luck or skilled reasoning, pretty accurately predicted the republican and democratic candidates for this year’s election. But I think that is one of the reasons why I always liked that show; its ability to connect the world of fiction to the real world.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Clinton's Strategy: the inevitable loss prolonged
There are only 2 contests left and 31 delegates up for grabs in the democratic primary saga. At this point, here are the running estimated total delegate counts:
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
| Obama | Clinton | ||
| Total(2,118 Needed to Win) | 2070 | 1914 | |
| Super Delegates | 823 | 331 | 290 |
| Pledged Delegates * | 3410 | 1739 | 1624 |
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Negotiating the ACTA in exchange for our privacy rights
There is a new international trade agreement being proposed. So far it has been developed in secret, until the documents were leaked. Read the full story. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Basically, major countries around the world like the U.S., Canada, and the countries in the E.U. are developing a law to try to cut down on piracy. They want to be able to search people at border crossings for illegally downloaded media, such as music. They will not only be looking though laptops, but mp3 players as well.
It’s hard to even begin to describe just how wrong this is on so many levels. Let’s start with delays. Someone goes through customs with a 10,000 song library on an iPod. How long do you think that will take to look through? The article indicates that the people in charge of deciding what is copyrighted material or not are the security guards. Great. So how do we prove that the songs we have are actually legal copies? Mp3s are not illegal, just ones that were not paid for. So do we have to carry around receipts for every music purchase we have ever made?
Plus, the security personnel have the power to confiscate or destroy the devises with the copyright material. Wait. They can just throw it away?!?!? How is this being seriously considered in these negotiations? Well, trade agreements are a responsibility of the executive branch in the United States, and they do not require parliamentary approval in Canada. Basically, if this becomes a law, expect ridiculous delay, innocent people accused of stealing and just about anyone with an iPod fined for pirated music.
This leads me to ask the question, are the customs officials bored? Are they just tired of looking for bombs, identifying terrorists, or searching for drugs? Honestly, in the last few years our government has stepped up enforcement efforts to try to keep our borders safe. Now what happens when terrorists sneak chemical weapons in the country because the security officers where too busy listening to Timmy’s music library? Is giving out fines to the people with digital media really a high priority for our border patrol?
That’s not even mentioning the fact that the border patrol can detain and question without allowing a lawyer present. I look at this law, and it sounds like the Patriot Act for illegal music. All they need is some suspicion no matter how unfounded, and they can confiscate your laptop, iPod, etc. without any due process of law. It’s guilty until proven innocent.
I would like to think that the Supreme Court would have objections to this, but based on the voting record, their consistently upholding tighter border control measures, and their support for the DMCA and its anti-circumvention clause, I am not too hopeful. The only way this gets prevented is through the responsible oversight of the American people (and the peoples of the other countries involved in this treaty). Hopefully, if the public is sufficiently outraged, this travesty of justice will never become law.
Basically, major countries around the world like the U.S., Canada, and the countries in the E.U. are developing a law to try to cut down on piracy. They want to be able to search people at border crossings for illegally downloaded media, such as music. They will not only be looking though laptops, but mp3 players as well.
It’s hard to even begin to describe just how wrong this is on so many levels. Let’s start with delays. Someone goes through customs with a 10,000 song library on an iPod. How long do you think that will take to look through? The article indicates that the people in charge of deciding what is copyrighted material or not are the security guards. Great. So how do we prove that the songs we have are actually legal copies? Mp3s are not illegal, just ones that were not paid for. So do we have to carry around receipts for every music purchase we have ever made?
Plus, the security personnel have the power to confiscate or destroy the devises with the copyright material. Wait. They can just throw it away?!?!? How is this being seriously considered in these negotiations? Well, trade agreements are a responsibility of the executive branch in the United States, and they do not require parliamentary approval in Canada. Basically, if this becomes a law, expect ridiculous delay, innocent people accused of stealing and just about anyone with an iPod fined for pirated music.
This leads me to ask the question, are the customs officials bored? Are they just tired of looking for bombs, identifying terrorists, or searching for drugs? Honestly, in the last few years our government has stepped up enforcement efforts to try to keep our borders safe. Now what happens when terrorists sneak chemical weapons in the country because the security officers where too busy listening to Timmy’s music library? Is giving out fines to the people with digital media really a high priority for our border patrol?
That’s not even mentioning the fact that the border patrol can detain and question without allowing a lawyer present. I look at this law, and it sounds like the Patriot Act for illegal music. All they need is some suspicion no matter how unfounded, and they can confiscate your laptop, iPod, etc. without any due process of law. It’s guilty until proven innocent.
I would like to think that the Supreme Court would have objections to this, but based on the voting record, their consistently upholding tighter border control measures, and their support for the DMCA and its anti-circumvention clause, I am not too hopeful. The only way this gets prevented is through the responsible oversight of the American people (and the peoples of the other countries involved in this treaty). Hopefully, if the public is sufficiently outraged, this travesty of justice will never become law.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
FISA vs. 4th Amdendment. Round 2
Congress is locked in a battle with the white house. At stake, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. Citizens. Unfortunately, there is a trade off between safety and freedom, and a price must be paid either way.
A little background: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ace) was originally passed in 1978 to provide oversight for legal wiretapping. There were additions made to the bill through the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Protect America Act of 2007. Specifically, the Protect America Act authorized the president to issue wiretaps on foreigners without a warrant or judicial oversight, so long as the Attorney General (also a member of the executive branch) approved. So why is this issue back in the hot seat? The Protect America Act expired February 2008.
Still, the same congress passed the law last year, why the hold up? Because there is a new provision in this bill, giving retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecommunication companies who cooperated with the government. See, the government wanted to look at phone records, but they did not have probable cause to get a warrant. So they just asked nicely. And some companies, for example AT&T, turned over that information. So if you have a phone through AT&T, the government knows what calls you’ve made, what time you made them, and who you made them to.
Understandably, some people were a little upset, so they filed a lawsuit, claiming these companies violated their privacy rights. Now, if the FISA provisions Bush would like are passed into law, these companies would get immunity. It’s turned into a very controversial issue. Some people applaud the telecoms for cooperating with our government to catch terrorists; others are appalled that their information was so callously given away, when there was no legal reason nor just cause to do so.
Why didn’t AT&T demand a subpoena for this private information? That’s why we have a court system and judicial oversight, requiring law enforcement to provide just cause before demanding personal/privileged documents. In fact, that would be the responsible action for a business concerned with its customer’s wellbeing (thank you Google); happy to cooperate as long as you have some kind of reasonable suspicion. But now, after acting irresponsibly, the government is trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. If consumers can’t hold companies accountable, we lose our voice in the market.
So the question is, did the U.S. Government violate the 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? I hear the argument over and over, ‘what does it matter if I have nothing to hide?’ That’s always an easy argument to make if you are not being accused of a crime. But we have these rights for a reason. The framers of the constitution came from a time when a corrupt government could storm through your house on a whim, searching everything, leaving you with absolutely no privacy whether you had committed a crime or not.
Our freedoms that we sometimes take for granted erode away just a little at a time. If we have no protections from our government when it comes to the phone calls we make, what websites we view online, or even what we are searching through search engines like AOL (all of which the U.S. government has requested to see information on), then how long is it until we have no protections in our own homes. Our rights erode away a little at a time, so you may not have something to hide, but you do have something to lose.
A little background: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ace) was originally passed in 1978 to provide oversight for legal wiretapping. There were additions made to the bill through the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Protect America Act of 2007. Specifically, the Protect America Act authorized the president to issue wiretaps on foreigners without a warrant or judicial oversight, so long as the Attorney General (also a member of the executive branch) approved. So why is this issue back in the hot seat? The Protect America Act expired February 2008.
Still, the same congress passed the law last year, why the hold up? Because there is a new provision in this bill, giving retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecommunication companies who cooperated with the government. See, the government wanted to look at phone records, but they did not have probable cause to get a warrant. So they just asked nicely. And some companies, for example AT&T, turned over that information. So if you have a phone through AT&T, the government knows what calls you’ve made, what time you made them, and who you made them to.
Understandably, some people were a little upset, so they filed a lawsuit, claiming these companies violated their privacy rights. Now, if the FISA provisions Bush would like are passed into law, these companies would get immunity. It’s turned into a very controversial issue. Some people applaud the telecoms for cooperating with our government to catch terrorists; others are appalled that their information was so callously given away, when there was no legal reason nor just cause to do so.
Why didn’t AT&T demand a subpoena for this private information? That’s why we have a court system and judicial oversight, requiring law enforcement to provide just cause before demanding personal/privileged documents. In fact, that would be the responsible action for a business concerned with its customer’s wellbeing (thank you Google); happy to cooperate as long as you have some kind of reasonable suspicion. But now, after acting irresponsibly, the government is trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. If consumers can’t hold companies accountable, we lose our voice in the market.
So the question is, did the U.S. Government violate the 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? I hear the argument over and over, ‘what does it matter if I have nothing to hide?’ That’s always an easy argument to make if you are not being accused of a crime. But we have these rights for a reason. The framers of the constitution came from a time when a corrupt government could storm through your house on a whim, searching everything, leaving you with absolutely no privacy whether you had committed a crime or not.
Our freedoms that we sometimes take for granted erode away just a little at a time. If we have no protections from our government when it comes to the phone calls we make, what websites we view online, or even what we are searching through search engines like AOL (all of which the U.S. government has requested to see information on), then how long is it until we have no protections in our own homes. Our rights erode away a little at a time, so you may not have something to hide, but you do have something to lose.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Clinton vs. Obama ... and McCain
The last few Democratic primaries are approaching. The convention is only a few months away. Yet the Dems have not chosen who they will nominate. Obama may have a majority of delegates, but Clinton has said that she will remain in the race as long as it takes, which means the convention in August. What does this mean for the Democratic Party?
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)