Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama's 'outside expert' surveillance board packed with insiders (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wouldn't necessarily tar Richard Clarke with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northerntier, Shockwave, dRefractor

    brush.  He called out Bush/Cheney for his/their failures and shenanigans.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:40:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Clarke may be okay, but he is still not a (13+ / 0-)

      technology expert and he is hyper-focused on terrorist threats.

      What we don't really see in the make up of this panel is any person who would qualify as a technology expert, nor do we see any person who is not only concerned about terrorist threats, but also mindful of the meaning and intent of our Constitution and our democracy.

      That whole "team of rivals" theory/projection of the Obama model of governing - hogwash again - and also subpar in terms of actually doing a decent job of governing from a more techical standpoint.  Snowden easily overcame safeguards that the NSA claims to have in place.  That right there should be an indication that the management of the program is not technologically sound.  

      I don't think that there really are any people in management positions who understand this technology.  Combine that with people like DiFi who probably needs someone to dial her cell phone for her and you have a train wreck - Snowden is the minor derailment - someone else not operating with the public good in mind could be the really deadly and gruesome mash up.

      •  No technology expert? Is that a problem? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        onionjim, barbwires, Tool, eztempo

        Larry Ellison thinks surveillance is great.

        His qualifications?

        He's been creating databases for organizations such as the the CIA since the '70s and it's made him an estimated $28 billion.

        Eminently qualified, right?

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:17:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clarke as a Technology expert (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        A ways back, He was asked to speak at a software industry event and had no qualms about saying that all their software "sucked" when it came to security.

        I have no idea what this means in terms of him being on the board. But I suspect it's not a great addition because he in fact does understand technology and what should be done to secure everything and he seems very big on intelligence especially the kind that the Bush admin ignored.

        Based on listening to him and reading about him he would tend to lean on the side of much more security.

        “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

        by Dburn on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:44:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Being a techie should not be a prerequisite. (0+ / 0-)

        Clarke brings other savvy.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 12:57:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I trust Richard Clarke (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CitizenOfEarth, accumbens, eztempo

      I think he has a lot of common sense.

      Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

      by Shockwave on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But does he or anyone else on this panel (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, greenbell, eztempo

        understand the technology; where the technology is going; what encryption really means; that just today it was reported that the password hacking software has been updated to passwords of up to 54 characters; or what any of that even means?  

        Where is the person who could sit on this panel who would be given the same status as the rest of them who knows what it means to build a hard drive or a software program?

        Just like the FISA court, these people are going to rely on what NSA technologists tell them without any expertise themselves or another member of the panel who isn't invested in protecting the NSA from oversight and meddling politicians.

        You could have five of the nicest most sensible people in the world on this panel and if they had no independent source to guide them through the technology they could be so easily misled.  So easily.  Frankly, that's part of what's already been going on.

      •  Clarke was unforgettable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave

        at the congressional hearings on 9/11. And he did try to impart the importance of the pre-9/11 chatter he was hearing to Ms. Condi Rice, who "didn't just want to swat at flies."

      •  I'll concede that Richard Clarke is trustworthy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        accumbens, Shockwave

        Perhaps he was thrown in there as a token voice to give the panel a whiff of credibility. But one person is not going to affect the outcome when he's a lone voice.


        No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

        by CitizenOfEarth on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:59:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site