Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Republicans Government Privacy United States Politics

Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs (dailydot.com) 343

Patrick O'Neill writes: The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:48PM (#51278435)

    People like like Marco Rubio, who think that any and every threat of violence is an excuse to make nearly omniscient government through every and any possible means of government, be president. He talks a game about reducing government. If/When the government attains the power he is talking about, then what's to stop it from using the power for other "unintended" purposes. He's a politician, he should know all about power creep. And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.

    captcha:tactics

    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:03PM (#51278589) Journal

      > And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.

      I've made that point calling conservative talk radio, and I called and said that to my House representative when he visited the local radio station. I hope you and others do the same.

    • Why are they all such sniveling cowards? They are supposedly all for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but don't give a shit about the 4th?

      A pox on all these jingos!

      And the Democrats are no better, not ever a bit.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      He's a politician, he should know all about power creep...

      Politicians are power creeps.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:52PM (#51278475) Journal
    Coming out strong in favor of surveillance is a bad idea. It's true that recent polls have shown the majority of Americans favor surveillance of 'suspicious people,' but among the people I've talked to, most are indifferent, some are ok with it, and a sizeable minority vehemently oppose it (this is something that I've found on both the conservative and liberal side. Whether you think "Bush is Hitler" or "Obama is trampling the constitution," spying is something you can appreciate as bad). Of the people who absolutely favor surveillance, even those understand that abusing it can be bad.

    So he's coming out with something that few people are strongly in favor of, but a sizeable minority strongly opposes. Something like that is a political loser.
  • by scunc ( 4201789 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:52PM (#51278479)
    Advocating the need for more tools while making yourself sound like a tool--it's an interesting strategy. Let's see how it works out for him ...
  • Crazy talk (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ravaldy ( 2621787 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:54PM (#51278503)

    What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?

    All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...

    The only surveillance I would approve of is the monitoring of our elected officials and how budgets are spent. THAT'S IT!

    • Re:Crazy talk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:10PM (#51278649) Homepage

      Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.

      Yes. Thousands of them. At least 100 million Americans, maybe more, agree with Rubio on this. Those people don't post on any of the same web forums that you or I do, but they exist and they vote.

      • Can we agree that fear mongering and miss information is what drives this way of thinking?

      • What amuses me is that these chuckleheads don't seem to realize that the NSA is incapable of effectively searching through the torrents of ELINT that they already gather.
        Yeah, let's dump more data on them, that will fix them not finding what's right in front of their nose!
    • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:41PM (#51278963)

      What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.

      Not really, no. And many of the ones they do talk to are fairly hysterical, racist, fearful and dumb. The republican base in the last few years seems to be particularly panicky and nuts. Used to be that the republicans were pragmatic economically and had a wing of the party where the kooks hung out that could be safely ignored. Now the tail is waging the dog and the religious nuts and the tea party loonies have gained enough power that they can't be ignored anymore. Combined with gerrymandered voting districts we've had both parties (but especially the republicans) getting more extreme for the last 10-15 years. If a politician isn't "pure" enough for their party they never make it out of the primary election.

      Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?

      Short answer? Sadly, yes.

      Long answer? We've got a lot of dumb, fearful people who are religious bigots and racists. They'll vote for anything that gives them a way to act on these us vs them tribal fears and the mechanisms to keep the politicians from responding to these idiots are broken or badly damaged.

      All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...

      I couldn't not agree more. Education, infrastructure, research, clean energy, etc are badly needed. A larger military and surveillance state is not. We're borrowing to pay for a military that is way larger than we need and an inefficient and badly designed health care system.

    • by unrtst ( 777550 )

      What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?

      There's more than one objective, and the blanket statements are the only ones that get traction, so that's what is often used.
      In this case, for example, yes, it will land on people that agree completely, and it may even sway some that were ok with the current amount of surveillance.
      At the same time, it's going to soften the blow of accepting other candidates' positions. For example, if Trump said he wanted to keep it at the same level, then those that actually wanted less but had to choose between those two

  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:55PM (#51278505)

    "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."

    See I prefer a Commander In Chief who actually treats the civil rights of US citizens as something more than an inconvenience to be trampled over at their whim. We don't need more "intelligence tools" that demonstrably do not make us any safer but manage to oppress us in the process.

    I look forward to the day when we have a republican candidate for president who doesn't ear big shoes, a colorful wig and have a red squeaky nose.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You are high off your ass if you think only Republicans want to increase government surveillance. What a great country we live in when voters' opinions are formed strictly from what Jon Stewart tells them...

      Obama wiping his ass with The Second Amendment sure shows what he thinks of the civil rights of US citizens.

      • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:27PM (#51278783) Homepage

        Obama wiping his ass with The Second Amendment sure shows what he thinks of the civil rights of US citizens.

        You're the confused one. Obama has been the best gun salesman [cnn.com] ever. Every time he says the word 'gun', thousands fly off shelves. You think this isn't part of a well coordinated plan? How do you think Obama plans to support his retirement? Social Security? Remember, he's pretty young yet. His presidential pardon is just pocket change.

        I bet that he is heavily invested in Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger....

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:06PM (#51278615) Journal

      I don't see much choice for you unless you plan to vote for Gary Johnson in the general. Hilliary's words and deeds have made it painful clear she is in about the same place on this issue. Sanders will not get the nomination and won't run as an independent.

      • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:21PM (#51278751) Journal

        Sanders will not get the nomination

        Why are you so sure? The polls in Iowa and NH show him even with Clinton (within the margin of error).

        • by jfengel ( 409917 )

          New Hampshire and Iowa are not really very representative of the US as a whole. The attention paid to them early on skews their perspectives on things. Sometimes that lets them pick out a dark horse, but more often it just means that they vote their local issues and then fade into obscurity. New Hampshire is right next door to Sanders' home state, and he's more popular there than in the rest of the country.

          It's possible that a surprise win in either could help raise his visibility (as it did for Obama in 20

      • Even if Sanders doesn't get the official nomination if enough people write him in on their ballots he gets the job if he wants it.

        And before anyone talks about "throwing your vote away" consider this: Your vote is only wasted when you don't use it.

        Every vote for gets counted, ever notice how the congresscriters talk about representing the "majority", when only slightly more than 1/6 of the registered voters actually voted at all? If everyone voted, even if they just write in their cat's name, the D
    • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:13PM (#51278675)

      Why does he has to be Republican? Or Democrat? Have you not understood after all these elections that that does not matter?

      They are all the same party, basically.

    • I look forward to the day when we have a republican candidate for president who doesn't ear big shoes, a colorful wig and have a red squeaky nose.

      We have candidates like that -- e.g. Jon Huntsman in 2012 -- but because they're moderates, they have no chance in the primary.

    • by PRMan ( 959735 )

      I used to like Marco Rubio.

      Edward Snowden is a traitor.

      Not anymore.

    • Marco Rubio panders to the older generation of Cubans that have fled Cuba.

      Politicians like him just wouldn't exist if only the second generation of political asylum seekers were allowed to vote in this country.

      As it stands, political asylum seekers lose their wars, come to this country, we give them citizenship, and they co-opt our politicians to fight their wars for them (since they only care about one issue when they vote, and that's about getting revenge on the country that originally f___d them).

  • by sageres ( 561626 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:55PM (#51278511)

    Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists.
    That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:55PM (#51278515)
    The correct answer to crime or terrorists is not more surveillance but more guns in the hands of citizens.
  • And this is why I am not a (R).

    We have plenty of government intervention into our lives. We don't need more. Americans aren't a danger to America. We are America!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're only lying to yourself if you're pretending that Rubio's stance is unique to Republicans.

      • I am not lying to myself, and Rubio's stance isn't limited to (R). Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. But you won't hear Liberal supporters of her talking about her Security stances. Mostly because they are completely hypocritical in light of her "email" problems.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I completely agree. However, the problem is that the Democrats are not any better: in the last eight years, things have only become worse despite Obama's "good intentions" before he was elected and none of the Democratic or Republican candidates have put forward credible steps towards reducing runaway government intervention. There is simply no presidential candidate at this point that I would even consider voting for. All of them are part of the problem.

    • Americans aren't a danger to America. We are America!

      I would argue that Americans are, in fact, the greatest threat to America.

      Both the parties' debates had that question about "what is the biggest threat to the US" and the candidates talked about terrorism and climate change. I think they were all wrong: not a single one said "internal conflict."

      What I wish for isn't a president who will stand against terrorism, or address income inequality, or whatever else has most of the platforms' focus. I wish for a p

    • Re:Rubio Fail (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:57PM (#51279203) Homepage
      Not a valid reason to not be an (R). I am an(R) a rather staunch (R). I do not support or agree with him in the least. Now if he manages to get the nomination I will vote for him as I disagree with him less than I disagree with the (D) candidates, but I will push my congress critters to block him at all costs. But know that many (R)'s are not happy with the surveillance and security theater imposed by our party leadership after 9/11. It goes contrary to the basic principles of conservatism. But Rubio is an establishment candidate, but most the R candidates are better than him on this topic. We may not agree on much, but on this we are in more agreement than you think.
      • I am not an (R) because they tend to be (D) in disguise far too often, and aren't right on a number of critical issues. I am not (D), because for the most part, they are fine with using state powers to take from others. Both (R) and (D) are fine with imposing their sociological experiments upon the people without any regard to liberty (freedom).

        I am a Libertarian, and support Liberty. The purpose of government is to secure liberty, but that is contrary to state power.

  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:55PM (#51278525)
    Trump - blowhard asshole
    Cruz - scary blowhard asshole
    Rubio - no concept of privacy
    Clinton - unindicted felon
    Bush - aww hell no
    Christie - not considered corrupt only by comparison to New Jersey
    Fiorina - Enriches herself by firing people


    Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
    • Cruz - scary blowhard asshole

      Listening to Ted Cruz, I think that he missed his calling. He sounds like he should be preaching in a tent revival. Or perhaps leading a mega-church on TV.

    • by jasenj1 ( 575309 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:06PM (#51278619)

      You forgot Rand Paul.

      Favors decriminalizing marijuana.
      Wants to minimize our interference in other countries' affairs.
      Wants to end the NSA spying.

    • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      It's sad that another Bush is the best thing coming form the (R) side, at least IMO.

      Of course the standards are really, really low.
    • If Cruz is a scary blowhard asshole, Trump is a scarier blowhard asshole. When your campaign rallies start employing brownshirt tactics like beating up protestors, you have become legitimately very scary.

    • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm&icebalm,com> on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:40PM (#51278953)

      Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!

      Oh my god, not a socialist! You do realize that the US has a ton of socialist programs already in place, right? Such as... Social Security, Medicaid, etc...

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Clinton - unindicted felon

      Okay, Mr/Ms. Lawyer, what EXACT law did she violate?

      I agree she made unwise decisions, but if you allege clear and specific laws were broken, then please be clear and explicit.

      Most legal experts in the subject say the related laws are complex, hazy, and/or nuanced.

  • Nothing prevents me as a law-abiding citizen from owning guns and building up a small arsenal to slaughter people in the name of Santa Claus. All the intelligence agencies won't have the slightest clue if I keep to myself and don't broadcast my intentions to the world at large.
    • by aicrules ( 819392 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:04PM (#51278597)
      That's not a small detail. That is exactly why all the posturing about "needing to do something" is all bull. Yes, it sucks that crimes, especially violent crimes, happen. But you literally cannot prevent them. Prosecute people according to the law and do your best to be vigilant in the legal enforcement of the law. Don't try to pass additional laws as if they can stop these things from happening. They can't. Even if you outlaw guns, it will happen just like this. Even if you outlaw Islam. Even if you outlaw people being in the streets at night. And based on wanting to protect my freedom, I'd rather not be breaking the law by walking around outside with or without my gun. So stop trying to pull this BS. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives...just STOP.
    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      Nothing prevents me as a law-abiding citizen from owning guns and building up a small arsenal to slaughter people in the name of Santa Claus. All the intelligence agencies won't have the slightest clue if I keep to myself and don't broadcast my intentions to the world at large.

      Clearly the end game involves a mixture of hiring one half of the population to spy on the other half, indoctrinating children to inform on their parents, and detaining reclusive people who live alone and don't have children because that's just unAmerican.

  • Flop-Flip (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:01PM (#51278575) Journal

    One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).

    But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.

    I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.

    • by creimer ( 824291 )

      One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing.

      The Republicans won the 2014 midterm elections with the lowest voter turnout since the 1920's, as Democratic voters typically stayed home during non-presidential years. Of course, the last time the Republicans held both houses of Congress was just a year before the 1929 stock market crash. Something to think about.

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/1928-congress-last-time-republicans-had-a-majority-this-huge-112913 [politico.com]

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        as Democratic voters typically stayed home during non-presidential years

        Many Democrats were also upset by the Snowden revelations, which is part of the reason they didn't bother to vote. It made Democrats feel ho-hum, and added fuel to the right's ever-burning anger over Obama.

        Anger brings people to the polls. The Right was angered by ACA, domestic snooping, the alleged Tea-Party-targeting IRS scandal, Ebola, Benghazi, the Arab-Spring going south, and their belief that O is a foreign-born gay Muslim commie

        • by creimer ( 824291 )

          Democrats had nothing that really energized them.

          Democrats typically come out in droves during the presidential elections. but not during midterm elections. Republicans typically come out in droves during the midterm elections, but not during the presidential elections. With 2016 being a repeat of 2012 that gives Hillary an electoral advantage, the Republicans will have a steep hill to climb to win the presidential election and keep the Senate with 24 seats — the Class of 2010 — are in play.

      • " the last time the Republicans held both houses of Congress was just a year before the 1929 stock market crash"

        Except for the 1994 election.From 1995-2000 and 2003-2005(?)

        Oh, and 1947 and 1953.

        At least that seems to be so based on some brief Googling.

        Sorry,what were you saying?

        • by creimer ( 824291 )

          At least that seems to be so based on some brief Googling.

          My bad. What I meant was that today's Republican Congress has the LARGEST majority since the 1920's.

  • by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:11PM (#51278657) Homepage
    I agree that Snowden was a traitor. (not for revealing the NSA collecting on citizens, that was whistleblowing. He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.

    That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.

      Quite the contrary -- the foreign data grabbing is the worst of all. While Americans elected the government that decided to secretly invade their privacy at an unprecedented scale, people in other countries had no say at all. They are mere victims. Furthermore, while part of the domestic snooping is likely to be illegal, all of the foreign snooping that was exposed is, without a doubt a criminal offence. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has allows foreign agencies to steal its citizens' data.

      By expos

    • Snowden is both a traitor and patriot.

      Plainly he broke the law.

      And he disclosed what should be recognized as abuse and overreach by our government and others.

      In this case, punishing him as a traitor will also silence other whistle blowers. We may never know what our government is doing, secretly, ostensibly on our behalf.

      And we will surely only guess at their motivations, though we should not. If secrecy were necessary for our protection, we could have that discussion, but have these programs actually res

    • I agree that Snowden was a traitor. (not for revealing the NSA collecting on citizens, that was whistleblowing. He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.

      That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.

      Where Rubio is wrong is in this: the best way to stop another Snowden is to *listen to him* when he goes to his higher-ups and tries to blow the whistle.

      Snowden did the right thing first, and, as usually happens in government, they circled the wagons. At that point he went rogue.

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:20PM (#51278727) Homepage
    We definitely need to add US survelieance programs.

    Let's start with a set of drones programmed to follow every single US Governor, Congressman, Senator, President or candidate for any of those jobs 24 hours a day, live streaming and recording it, viewable by any IP address located inside the USA.

    We can put in an exclusion for when they actually meat on top secret/confidential meetings - as long as those meetings only consist of people directly employed by the US government.

    • Re:totally agree ; D (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:32PM (#51278837) Homepage

      Lobbyists. You really want to ensure no bullshit is happening, track every single registered lobbyist.

      Those guys are doing FAR more to undermine your government by ensuring that corporate interests take precedence over everything else.

      The ones writing checks are also writing policy.

      The Copyright cartel (which is mostly multinational corporations) practically write laws and trade agreements for the US government these days, and the government is largely on the payroll of corporate interests.

      • True. But there are so many lobbyists. Harder to do than just the actual representatives.
      • Lobbying is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees your right to petition the government. Whether or not corporations should be granted that right is a different question.
  • I regularly readjust my irrigation system to minimize waste from overspray, aiming, and excessive runtimes.

    The same scrutiny should be be applied to our various government surveillance efforts.

    'Better tools' should include identifying legitimate and dangerous targets based on general surveillance, focusing on real threats, and enhanced oversight and permission. Courts should have meaningful and genuine control over requests for detailed information.

    The current scheme seems to be 'collect everything', with

  • by L. J. Beauregard ( 111334 ) on Monday January 11, 2016 @02:03PM (#51279283)

    War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.

Working...