I call BS on the veto threat. Obama gave the National Counterterrorism Center authority to examine government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732447830457817...
It's ridiculous this is being repeated ad nauseum. Yes, he threatened to veto the NDAA unless specific changes were made. The changes were made, compromised was reached, and he didn't veto it.
Agree or disagree with the NDAA, saying he threatened to veto it and then backtracked is just wrong. He threatened to veto it _unless_ it was modified, and it then was.
This is exactly the point being made. Threatening to veto unless minor changes are made is just a way of getting the public to accept a form of something they previously opposed entirely on principle. As the previous commenter said, it's a strategy to erode public opposition. NDAA was augmented and yet indefinite detention without charge is a reality.
I wouldn't want to program a big system with some of the people on this thread. I can just picture y'all screaming and forking the code base because we compromised to keep Windows XP support.
This was issued on Tuesday, before the bill was passed in the House by a veto-proof margin of 288-117. The only hope for rejection is Congress mustering less than 60 Yeas.
You are correct. Both houses must vote again, and by that time many votes may change. A two-thirds majority in both on revote is required to override the veto.
He can't. It has to pass for him to be a able to veto it. Currently it has only passed the house. It has to pass the Senate. Then it will come up on his desk for his signature, and then he can veto it by refusing to sign it.
Him saying he will veto it, is like a courtesy notice to the Senate saying "don't even bother with this, it will get vetoed."
NDAA is a matter of international terrorism. It also heavily depends on how well the federal government does its job, no matter how distrusted the feds are. There is no sense in innocent individuals being locked, and even if it is, it will almost never happen.
CISPA won't kill anyone, it's a matter of top-notch economy for a top-notch sector. The choice is much more easy here.
One of the things that seems to be missing is an easily findable "Why CISPA is bad" page. There are tons of people speaking out against it, but all in generalities because they assume you know what is in CISPA already.
So all it does is make it easier for government agencies to request data from online providers?
I guess my biggest question is why the amount of time required to get the proper judicial papers can hamper government investigations.
I feel like when I talk to people about it I need to give them something to think about and a simple question to ask their rep/sen. Sure, it'll be skirted with "it's a requirement to ensure safety" but some people won't just buy that and will feel like they are having smoke blown up their ass.
(BTW, thanks for the link. For some reason I didn't find it myself on the EFF site.)
The administration has threatened to veto a number of bills and followed up by signing the bill. It is how the administration plays lip service to their concerned constituents.
If I recall, we were also supposed to get a number of days to evaluate a new law before it is signed.
I really hope this is legit. My understanding is that a veto threat is often just used as a bargaining chip. (As mentioned previously, Obama also threatened to veto the NDAA, so...)
I'm a cynic. All I can see here is Obama positioning himself to appear to be on the people's side diverting attention from the people's original demand of opposing CISPA in its entirety.
This posturing is just the thin end of the wedge, a mechanism to get CISPA accepted in the people's mind. It's classic car salesman technique; 'what don't you like about the car?'. Once you are in that dialogue it's just a series of checks to tick off before you are buying a car.
My last comment tried to justify why he wouldn't veto this. I am happy to be wrong. Still though, I see it as drawing attention to the bill to put pressure on the Senate. I just don't see how passing this bill as a Senator could be that bad. Pros: $$$, Cons: Young people don't like you. I tend to think that young people are less of a concern in congressional elections.
This is actually one of the rare situations where I think it's not appropriate to credit the White House "team" for things. A decision to announce a veto threat, almost by definition, happens at the very top of the ladder. We really do need to be thanking the President and Chief of Staff on this, for listening to whoever on the team was spearheading tech policy and making a bold call based on those recommendations.
Obama himself probably doesn't know nearly enough about technology to make these sorts of decisions on his own. The difference between him and all the politicians who appear not to know anything about technology is that Obama hired a competent tech team and actually listens to them.
I don't think knowledge on the subject in this case particularly applies except in the opposite circumstance. Knowing nothing about passing a bill that changes the way things work currently is dangerous but being against a bill that does not do enough to clarify its effect on the status-quo, along with not having a deep understanding of technology, does not make that viewpoint any less credible.
And where, may I ask, is the Holy Ghost in all of this? That's who I blame: Absentee Holy Ghosts, never making themselves immanent in Creation and leading to creeping Arianism in the population.
I swore I'd never be one of "those guys" who complains that a site he likes is going down the drain, but it seems like more and more of HN is dedicated to nit-picking these days. I guess I was wrong about myself. The foibles of youth.
It has its days. Certain posts attract more of the type of chatter you might prefer to avoid. Just remember that those people are wasting their time to post junk and not pursuing business goals to compete with you. :-)
Obama disagrees with some details of the bill, not with the broad outlines. He wants the bill to pass, but he wants some also wants some changes made. He's using (threat of) veto power as leverage to get those changes made. A veto would be a blunt and somewhat counter-productive response, but veto power is the main piece of leverage that comes with the office.
So yeah, he actually likes the bill and the likelihood is that he will sign it or some form of it. The veto threat is just part of the dance.
It's a general strategy, so it applies to the veto threats to both of those bills, as well as a number of others. I think it applies moreso to CISPA than to the NDAA, because my impression is that he has smaller reservations about the details of CISPA.
An NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comparable to CISPA
Most people seem to not understand that that's the same bill. The NDAA is an annual bill specifying the defense budget. The indefinite detention provisions that upset so many people are attached to that bill.
As the President cannot veto part of a bill, vetoing the NDAA over those provisions would literally mean vetoing the entire defense budget.
I definitely understand that view, but on that drawing board are the words "two-thirds majority". It comes down to a choice between an impotent veto and an impotent signing statement.
The veto threat is more than just a simple threat to veto, it's a tactic to make the executive opinion obvious and to try and influence lawmakers to change a bill before delivering it.
It's not tech policy, it's the national security council. If you read one of the linked articles (pre-veto threat), it's made clear that the executive agrees with the bill but wants a few more changes made.
"We continue to believe that information sharing improvements are essential to effective legislation, but they must include privacy and civil liberties protections, reinforce the roles of civilian and intelligence agencies, and include targeted liability protections. The Administration seeks to build upon the productive dialogue with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger over the last several months, and the Administration looks forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that any cybersecurity legislation reflects these principles. Further, we believe the adopted committee amendments reflect a good faith-effort to incorporate some of the Administration's important substantive concerns, but we do not believe these changes have addressed some outstanding fundamental priorities."
You have no friends in the executive branch. It is in their best interests to permit the most invasive and sweeping information gathering methods possible in the pursuit of their investigations. Keep in mind that the FBI and DHS, among others, ultimately report to the president.
