Tim Cook and Other Tech Executives to Meet With President Obama to Discuss NSA Surveillance and Health Care Website

[Klae17]

Wait, hold on. Are these guys somehow supposed to be unelected representatives? They have NO place in the process of striking this unconstitutional agency. We're the ones who are supposed to be marching on Washington to protest this assault on our rights.

Go ahead. #teamGoldenJoe

----------

It astounds me how much the government has spent on the web site. It should have been done for 1/100th as much and work. They should have hired someone competent and proven like Amazon.

But then how would they say they created hundreds of jobs?

----------

Don't you think we have a RIGHT to know what info is being discussed ?

However we DO trust Apple after all, and/or Google with our information, yet we can't get any further than that ?

Its kinda a laugh to think this, national security, not not. he public has every right to know...

After all,, we already know about what the NSA is doing (thanks to Snowden), therefore, we should also know whats going to happen. directly from the talks...

Info will leak out anyway afterwards in some fashion, so why not spill it directly from the pigs themselves.

Its always fun then they get stuff wrong, and try to police themselves which backfires..

I want a front row seat, just to point and laugh.

I wouldn't want you near our national security information.

 

[Tech198]

i doubt myself that anyway..

 

[giantfan1224]

Mr. Cook, please keep your eye on Apple's business instead.

Such privacy issues are very important to Apple's business. Therefore very appropriate for Cook to be involved.

 

[Klae17]

This is a political not a technical meeting.

The solution is obvious. Reduce government "mandatory" spending (off-budget finance), reduce annual deficits, increase interest rates gradually now, make regulations subject to normal judicial standards, less regulation, more legislation.

And for goodness sake, revive the Senate rule on voting that was in place since the beginning till this week!

Benefits:

Less government means more private sector where money velocity is higher. Velocity is at a record low due to overburdonsome government.

Less deficits shifting to surpluses will minimize the damage to the budget when interest rates and debt service rises. It will reduce the pressure to steal from the social security and medicare "trust funds". It will also allow the Fed to reduce its balance sheet faster.

Increased interest rates will take the thumb off the scale of the free market, end financial repression (grandma earning interest in retirement), which will shift benefits from the 1% to the 40%.

Regulators are in a monologue with themselves. There needs to be a law passed making administrative courts subject to "preponderance of the evidence", not "regulator correct by default".

Congress delegate less, legislate more. Deprecate 3-6 regulators entirely.

Start there.

Rocketman

Can you hear me Tim?

The second attachment the left scale should read T not M for Trillion.

Wait why are you asking Tim to hear you out? Shouldn't you be calling out to the president or any other representative or appointed official that actually has some influence or power on the matter?

 

[Technarchy]

After watching 60 Minutes yesterday, I actually feel a little better about the whole NSA/Prism situation.

With proper oversight and accountability, we need to allow the government certain tools to protect us, or another 9/11, or much worse, could be here sooner rather than later.

No thanks. I'll side with Ben on this.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[bradl]

After watching 60 Minutes yesterday, I actually feel a little better about the whole NSA/Prism situation.

With proper oversight and accountability, we need to allow the government certain tools to protect us, or another 9/11, or much worse, could be here sooner rather than later.

I said this before, shortly after 9/11, and with the Patriot Act during Bush's Administration, and I'll say it again:

A wise man once said (and I'll paraphrase):

Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom, nor security.

We lost those during the "War on Terror" with warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act, and we lost them here, up until Judge Leon ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of data violates the 4th Amendment.

But instead, I'll ask this: Are you really willing to give up your freedoms for the perceived safety you'll get from a 9/11-type event that may never happen?

BL.

 

[Rogifan]

That's quite a guest list. I have to wonder, is there really a point to this thing besides Obama rubbing shoulders with some of the tech industry's most successful people?

That is the point. Obama love nothing more than mingling with celebrities/rich people.

 

[unobtainium]

After watching 60 Minutes yesterday, I actually feel a little better about the whole NSA/Prism situation.

With proper oversight and accountability, we need to allow the government certain tools to protect us, or another 9/11, or much worse, could be here sooner rather than later.

Don't be fooled. http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/12/15/5214452/60-minutes-softball-NSA-expose

The war on terror has already killed millions more people than terrorism, and the massive invasions of privacy are similarly completely out of scale.

 

[Parasprite]

These talks should be transparent to the public and not behind closed doors. How do we really know what they are talking about?

Nah, I respect their privacy.

 

[bradl]

No thanks. I'll side with Ben on this.

Hey! Get outta my head!

BL.

 

[Plutonius]

Just another photo session.

 

[Parasprite]

It's sensitive information that could threaten national security if disclosed to the public.

Don't you think we have a RIGHT to know what info is being discussed ?

However we DO trust Apple after all, and/or Google with our information, yet we can't get any further than that ?

Its kinda a laugh to think this, national security, not not. he public has every right to know...

You're really good at picking up on sarcasm.

 

[Rubo Draco]

Lol

and what are they going to discuss? "How can we make it more invisible for the users?"

 

[Technarchy]

Hey! Get outta my head!

BL.

You and I an usually are different sides of political issues. Free country. That's okay, but I think we act as an example where most people are on this issue irrespective of political affiliation or ideology...We think is sucks and needs to go.

So why the hell aren't our Reps actually representing we the people and dismantling this massive attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press?

Sad state of affairs, because if can't solve this when the majority are in agreement, there is no way in hell we can deal with education, national debt, healthcare, economic disparity and eroding middle class.

 

[Earendil]

Wait, hold on. Are these guys somehow supposed to be unelected representatives? They have NO place in the process of striking this unconstitutional agency. We're the ones who are supposed to be marching on Washington to protest this assault on our rights.

How are "we" supposed to be the ones to do this and not these guys? Are you claiming that none of them are voting citizens? Second, while the job description is quite different, the President is a CEO in a sense, making high level decisions on budgets, money, and how to spend it to better the people that the decisions effect. They are not a 1-1 comparison though, so please don't nitpick that comparison. Anyway, I'm not sure why we would expect/desire the president to be an island and never to seek advice/information from other intelligent people that seem to be doing a rather good job at doing a similar job. They will likely give better advice, or more "outside the box" thinking than any random set of people.

A wise man once said (and I'll paraphrase):

Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom, nor security.

If by "wise man" you mean Benjamin Franklin, and by "paraphrase" you mean "can't be bothered to look it up, so I'll try and repeat what I think I remember reading someplace". Paraphrasing would be when you shorten an otherwise lengthy quote, that you have knowledge of, into a more condensed form. 1 point of credit for at least getting the spirit of the quote right. Here is the actual quote:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". - Benjamin Franklin​

We lost those during the "War on Terror" with warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act, and we lost them here, up until Judge Leon ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of data violates the 4th Amendment.

But instead, I'll ask this: Are you really willing to give up your freedoms for the perceived safety you'll get from a 9/11-type event that may never happen?

To be clear, in a stable society you willingly give up SOME freedom in order to get SOME security. If you do not, you have a chaotic society where everyone is "free" to do anything. The opposite extreme is being locked in a box where no harm can touch you. There is a middle ground that every society must come to an agreement on.

Trouble arises when a few people make the decision about where that point is, instead of the society as a whole. Make no mistake that even if the society decides, there will always be people on the fringe that think too much freedom has been lost, or not enough security exists.

I personally think we are too far into the security, and not close enough to the freedom. But it's unlikely that society will settle on the same point on the spectrum that I wish it to be. I would however not like that point decided behind closed doors without the backing of society. In this way, I can choose a different country/society to live in if this one no longer suits me.

 

[Rocketman]

Wait why are you asking Tim to hear you out? Shouldn't you be calling out to the president or any other representative or appointed official that actually has some influence or power on the matter?

The President is opposed to solutions. His most prescient staff quote is "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste". I believe he creates crisis' to be the saviour with socialist solutions.

Tim is a political ally, so if even HE suggests solving problems by reducing crisis actions, Obama is more likely to listen.

This President governs by near 100% politics and near zero governing. You do know he has not had a budget since 2009, don't you? You DO know it is because of the D controlled Senate not bringing them for reconciliation don't you? Budget bills only require 51 votes and the Democrats in the Senate have 55 votes.

Increased money velocity (jobs, GDP) would help Apple first and fastest, because it would help the lower and middle classes most.

Rocketman

 

[Four oF NINE]

This is a political not a technical meeting.

The solution is obvious. Reduce government "mandatory" spending (off-budget finance), reduce annual deficits, increase interest rates gradually now, make regulations subject to normal judicial standards, less regulation, more legislation.

And for goodness sake, revive the Senate rule on voting that was in place since the beginning till this week!

Benefits:

Less government means more private sector where money velocity is higher. Velocity is at a record low due to overburdonsome government.

Less deficits shifting to surpluses will minimize the damage to the budget when interest rates and debt service rises. It will reduce the pressure to steal from the social security and medicare "trust funds". It will also allow the Fed to reduce its balance sheet faster.

Increased interest rates will take the thumb off the scale of the free market, end financial repression (grandma earning interest in retirement), which will shift benefits from the 1% to the 40%.

Regulators are in a monologue with themselves. There needs to be a law passed making administrative courts subject to "preponderance of the evidence", not "regulator correct by default".

Congress delegate less, legislate more. Deprecate 3-6 regulators entirely.

Start there.

Rocketman

Can you hear me Tim?

The second attachment the left scale should read T not M for Trillion.

Your right wing doctrinaire prescriptions would prove disastrous. I prefer that Tim Cook subscribe to Nobel Prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman who make very cogent arguments supporting policies that are the polar opposite of what you suggest here.

 

[bradl]

If by "wise man" you mean Benjamin Franklin, and by "paraphrase" you mean "can't be bothered to look it up, so I'll try and repeat what I think I remember reading someplace". Paraphrasing would be when you shorten an otherwise lengthy quote, that you have knowledge of, into a more condensed form. 1 point of credit for at least getting the spirit of the quote right. Here is the actual quote:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". - Benjamin Franklin​

You would assume wrong:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:

• They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
• They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
• Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
• He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
• He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
• People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
• If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
• Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
• He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
• Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
• Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
• Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

'Derivative'. Good dictionary word.

To be clear, in a stable society you willingly give up SOME freedom in order to get SOME security. If you do not, you have a chaotic society where everyone is "free" to do anything. The opposite extreme is being locked in a box where no harm can touch you. There is a middle ground that every society must come to an agreement on.

True, and one of those would be our 4th Amendment, which protects us from what the government has been doing since the months after 9/11. I'm not willing to give up our right to privacy for a version of society akin to both Orwell's 1984 and Hoxley's Brave New World.

That's why we have laws on the books to protect us from that, plus SCOTUS rulings, such as Smith v. Maryland that address that.

Trouble arises when a few people make the decision about where that point is, instead of the society as a whole. Make no mistake that even if the society decides, there will always be people on the fringe that think too much freedom has been lost, or not enough security exists.

In short, Congress instead of the people? That's what brought us the Patriot Act.

I personally think we are too far into the security, and not close enough to the freedom. But it's unlikely that society will settle on the same point on the spectrum that I wish it to be. I would however not like that point decided behind closed doors without the backing of society. In this way, I can choose a different country/society to live in if this one no longer suits me.

Agreed.

BL.

 

[Ugg]

Mr. Cook, please keep your eye on Apple's business instead.

I'll bet you're one of those who supports corporate personhood when it suits your sense of financial well-being. Personhood by definition means responsibility goes along with rights. No wonder the US is in such bad shape when so many view CEOs as only a means to increase stock prices.

 

[Rocketman]

Your right wing doctrinaire prescriptions would prove disastrous. I prefer that Tim Cook subscribe to Nobel Prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman who make very cogent arguments supporting policies that are the polar opposite of what you suggest here.

Look around. How's it working so far in 5 years of testing? This started out as a "liquidity crisis" TARP solved that and all was paid back with interest. The subsequent "fiscal measures" have drastically reduced GDP, employment, mainly with minorities, reduced the labor participation rate, drastically increased the deficit and debt, forced the Fed to ramp the balance sheet to offset fiscal policies, and financial repression. All savers earn under 1% interest for a half to full decade!! That alone takes 2-3 points off GDP and adds to the jobless rate.

We are observing the Krugman test. In real life and it sucks.

BTW do you even know what he got a (not real *) Nobel for? One report.

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

 

[Four oF NINE]

Look around. How's it working so far in 5 years of testing? This started out as a "liquidity crisis" TARP solved that and all was paid back with interest. The subsequent "fiscal measures" have drastically reduced GDP, employment, mainly with minorities, reduced the labor participation rate, drastically increased the deficit and debt, forced the Fed to ramp the balance sheet to offset fiscal policies, and financial repression. All savers earn under 1% interest for a half to full decade!! That alone takes 2-3 points off GDP and adds to the jobless rate.

We are observing the Klugman test. In real life and it sucks.

If you've been following Dr. Krugman at all and paying attention to the policies of Barack Obama, you would understand there's a wide gulf there.

This president has been pursuing the neoliberal prescriptions you prefer including a stimulus that was about one third what was indicated, much of which was tax cuts. TARP did nothing but reward the bad actors on Wall St and did nothing to provide relief to the homeowners.

The deficit has been cut in half during Obama's presidency, there's no imminent threat there. The problem is unemployment which remains at historic highs.

Perhaps you should look again.

 

[macs4nw]

I said this before, shortly after 9/11, and with the Patriot Act during Bush's Administration, and I'll say it again:

A wise man once said (and I'll paraphrase):

Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom, nor security.

We lost those during the "War on Terror" with warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act, and we lost them here, up until Judge Leon ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of data violates the 4th Amendment.

But instead, I'll ask this: Are you really willing to give up your freedoms for the perceived safety you'll get from a 9/11-type event that may never happen?

BL.

I'm just as loathe as any of you, to have the fed spy on me, and my fellow citizens. But the reality is there, starkly staring us in the face with every new terrorist attack, foreign or domestic. It is an entirely different world out there right now, than our forefathers in all their wisdom could have ever imagined.

Their are people out there right now, who are using every tool our free western society allows them, to plan for, and inflict massive death and destruction upon innocent civilians, including trying to purchase Fissile Material, use of which could kill millions, and make large urban centers uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

I ask any of you with your well-intentioned defense of our freedoms: Are you willing to let these individuals plan and act with impunity, lest our privacy might accidentally be somewhat compromised temporarily. The potential for massive destruction is just too great to take a laissez faire attitude on this one. How many deaths does it take before we realize that our government can not protect us from realistic scenarios such as these, without us allowing those in charge of protecting society, the tools to be a step ahead of possible future terror strikes.

After good health, freedom is the greatest thing on earth, but immaterial after dying at the hands of a terrorist. Sounds dramatic, I admit, but we're not talking about a small improvised home-made bomb anymore. There are those out there, who would wipe us off the face of the earth, if they could.

I maintain, with proper oversight and accountability, let the fed do their job.

 

[MacNut]

I'm just as loathe as any of you, to have the fed spy on me, and my fellow citizens. But the reality is there, starkly staring us in the face with every new terrorist attack, foreign or domestic. It is an entirely different world out there right now, than our forefathers in all their wisdom could have ever imagined.

Their are people out there right now, who are using every tool our free western society allows them, to plan for, and inflict massive death and destruction upon innocent civilians, including trying to purchase Fissile Material, use of which could kill millions, and make large urban centers uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

I ask any of you with your well-intentioned defense of our freedoms: Are you willing to let these individuals plan and act with impunity, lest our privacy might accidentally be somewhat compromised temporarily. The potential for massive destruction is just too great to take a laissez faire attitude on this one. How many deaths does it take before we realize that our government can not protect us from realistic scenarios such as these, without us allowing those in charge of protecting society, the tools to be a step ahead of possible future terror strikes.

After good health, freedom is the greatest thing on earth, but immaterial after dying at the hands of a terrorist. Sounds dramatic, I admit, but we're not talking about a small improvised home-made bomb anymore. There are those out there, who would wipe us off the face of the earth, if they could.

I maintain, with proper oversight and accountability, let the fed do their job.

So the Boston bombing didn't happen?

 

[killr_b]

IBM offers to help out with healthcare for free...

Doesn't get invited.

Facebook, Zynga, and Twitter do.

All out of laughs for this gov

 

[Swift]

I'm glad they are concerned about my privacy...

They want it to themselves.