Skip to content

Barack Obama seeks to expand wiretapping to include the internet

September 27, 2010

  During the 2008 presidential campaign–and actually for several years preceding the campaign–the Democrats made a huge issue out of President Bush’s policy of wiretapping outgoing calls to terrorist sponsoring countries.

  During the campaign then candidate Barack Obama promised to end the Bush wiretapping policy, only to keep this policy in place once he won the presidency. The Obama regime even went as far as throwing out a lawsuit against President Bush’s wiretapping policy.

 So much for the wiretapping policy being a violation of civil liberties; I guess it just depends which party is the one in power because there have been no Democrats that I can remember who have come out and demanded an end to Barack Obama’s wiretapping policy they way they did when it was President Bush running the show.

  But now Barack Obama wants to actually expand President Bush’s wiretapping policy to include Blackberries, Facebook, and other peer to peer websites.

  Under a plan that Barack Obama is  looking to introduce to the Congress next year he will look for “sweeping new regulations of the Internet.”

 Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations of the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct “peer-to-peer” messaging such as Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order.

  It is no secret that Democrats have been trying to gain more control over the internet; they have tried unsuccessfully to pass Net Neutrality but have been unable to gain a foothold using a “cyber emergency” as an excuse for letting Barack Obama seize control of–and shut down–the internet if a perceived attack is deemed imminent. So Democrats seem to be moving away from that angle and towards another angle designed to regulate the internet. But the end result would be the same; more government regulations on the internet.

  Defenders of Barack Obama will claim that there is a difference with this policy and the Bush administration’s wiretapping policy, because this will be done legally, but regardless of whether or not you feel the Bush policy was legal, anyone who opposed Bush’s wiretapping policy cannot possibly be in favor of Barack Obama’s new potential internet wiretapping policy based on the same arguments that the left made about the assault on personal liberties in regards to Bush’s wiretapping policies.

   The legal expansion the government’s authority should not quiet down those that were opposed to the Bush wiretapping policy because the bottom line here is, the end result is the same; Big Brother wants to know what you are up to.

  It will be interesting to note how many people who publicly opposed  President Bush’s wiretapping policy will rise up in support of this legislation.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. September 27, 2010 8:18 pm

    Where all the liberals now? I mean they were like locust when the shoe was on the other foot with the Patriot Act. Where’s the crying out of tyranny? Crickets…nothing. This goes to show you just how fake these people are. Great post Steve.


    • September 27, 2010 9:29 pm

      Fake, that is the word that probably sums it up best on this issue. They were so up in arms when it was Bush, but now they are silent. They are nothing but a bunch of phonies who will say whatever it takes to get elected.


  2. September 27, 2010 10:21 pm

    Political opportunists-that is what they are. The left loves this kind of power. They just attacked Bush to score some political points.


    • September 27, 2010 10:37 pm

      Exactly, they have no shame when it comes to this type of double sandard. But then again, they know the media will never call them out on this.


  3. LD Jackson permalink
    September 27, 2010 10:51 pm

    It will be interesting indeed, Steve. I will dare say, not very many of them will publicly oppose this push for greater wiretapping abilities.


    • September 28, 2010 7:11 am

      I think you are right, it seems to be okay when Democrats do it. We know the media isn’t ging to give this the same amount of attention either.


  4. Mike permalink
    September 28, 2010 10:09 am

    Someone please enlighten me — why isn’t legal wiretapping of suspected terrorist internet and Blackberry different from illegal, warrantless tapping of someones telephone? It strikes me as vastly different and I don’t see why it’s not reasonable to support one and oppose the other. Of course it’s a violation of civil liberties but it’s also a trade-off versus national security. Am I happy about it? No, but I see the necessity and so I accept the consequnce because it will be done in accordance with long-accepted law — a warrant must be obtained first. I’m not getting the outrage or the double standard here guys.


    • September 28, 2010 10:10 pm

      Here is what I posted over at Political Realities:

      “They do not want to do this without a warrant, but I still don’t think that should matter to those that opposed the wiretapping, this is a further encroachment on the people and those that opposed the wiretapping should also oppose this. If this is really a civil liberties issue, does legalizing the civil liberties violations make it any more tolerable?”

      My point is that people who are defending this are doing it on the basis that it is legal this way, as if legalizing a civil l iberties violation is a more acceptable violation. And let us not forget all of the leftists who were quoting Ben Franklin:

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

      are now claiming that as long this is okay now because the government went through the proper procedures, as if that makes it any less of an infraction.


  5. September 28, 2010 7:09 pm

    imo Skype is what they really want to get into


  6. October 6, 2010 6:04 am

    Well I’ve known Barack to side up with the wrong people who wish to limit free speech and I said as much many years ago in Nashua when he buddied up with NHSBA who encouraged limiting speech at school board meetings. There is an entire history here, including Joe Biden’s flip flops on a promise he made me to go after multiple felons who still carry guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1):

    But then again I can’t exactly say that Kelly Ayotte in NH is any better, as she has suddenly decided that I’m not a journalist, despite my professional affiliations in the past, current radio shows and her prior recognition of me as a journalist.

    She and Barack need to learn that they have to accept criticism and free speech, and neither pot can call the kettle black.

    True that.

    PS: The NAACP’s Bruce Gordon, as Verizon Home Markets Prez, undoubtedly knew of the NSA wiretaps, he resigned not long after I , as a former NAACP Legal Chair, started publicizing it.



  1. Security: Is Our Government Unnecessarily Invading Our Privacy? « publicandprivatespace
  2. What Obama didn’t screw up -

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: