But recently the Senate again took up legislation that would let the phone companies off the hook. It would also expand the government's domestic spying powers.
Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9.
I think the simple explanation here is this: Governments rely on information to function. When you get into a position of power and see the breadth and quality of information provided by digital means, you aren't going to be the one to push to turn that off. I'm talking about all data here of course, not just the NSA et. al. - weather, financial, trade data, so on. However, I think this is even closer to the truth when it comes to clandestine sources of data, since those are more often than not tightly coupled with security.
The point being that all of this just makes logical sense given their (essentially impossible) mission of preventing all future terrorist attacks, whether or not you agree with it from an ethical perspective. It makes an argument against the NSA's methods difficult without hard evidence that threats to the country are either overinflated or could not possibly be stopped without surreptitious methods.
Comments
Obama publicly agreed with the data collection and voted to expand it before the election.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/...
I think the simple explanation here is this: Governments rely on information to function. When you get into a position of power and see the breadth and quality of information provided by digital means, you aren't going to be the one to push to turn that off. I'm talking about all data here of course, not just the NSA et. al. - weather, financial, trade data, so on. However, I think this is even closer to the truth when it comes to clandestine sources of data, since those are more often than not tightly coupled with security.
The point being that all of this just makes logical sense given their (essentially impossible) mission of preventing all future terrorist attacks, whether or not you agree with it from an ethical perspective. It makes an argument against the NSA's methods difficult without hard evidence that threats to the country are either overinflated or could not possibly be stopped without surreptitious methods.