Obama Administration Set To Expand Sharing of Data That NSA Intercepts (nytimes.com) 103
schwit1 writes: The Obama administration is on the verge of permitting the National Security Agency to share more of the private communications it intercepts with other American intelligence agencies without first applying any privacy protections to them, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.
The idea is to let more experts across American intelligence gain direct access to unprocessed information, increasing the chances that they will recognize any possible nuggets of value. That also means more officials will be looking at private messages - not only foreigners' phone calls and emails that have not yet had irrelevant personal information screened out, but also communications to, from, or about Americans that the NSA's foreign intelligence programs swept in incidentally.
Civil liberties advocates criticized the change, arguing that it will weaken privacy protections. They said the government should disclose how much American content the NSA collects incidentally - which agency officials have said is hard to measure - and let the public debate what the rules should be for handling that information.
The idea is to let more experts across American intelligence gain direct access to unprocessed information, increasing the chances that they will recognize any possible nuggets of value. That also means more officials will be looking at private messages - not only foreigners' phone calls and emails that have not yet had irrelevant personal information screened out, but also communications to, from, or about Americans that the NSA's foreign intelligence programs swept in incidentally.
Civil liberties advocates criticized the change, arguing that it will weaken privacy protections. They said the government should disclose how much American content the NSA collects incidentally - which agency officials have said is hard to measure - and let the public debate what the rules should be for handling that information.
Wow! Just Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the complaint? Didn't he promise to be more transparent? He didn't say with whom
Re:Wow! Just Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
CHANGE prior administrations' policies very little
HOPE you don't get indefinitely detained
Re: (Score:1)
Can you spare some [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
I really hope both Sanders and Trump get their party's nominations just to shake things up a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
well, I guess it's hard to say that I feel vindicated when my face is next to yours under the boot.
I disagree. It always feels good to say "I told you so!!!!", even if you're in the same sinking boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"parallel construction is bad!. But you must prove that parallel construction has taken place before we will throw out this evidence."
Re: (Score:3)
I can imagine some consequences, the biggest of which is that there'll be more leaks -- of the Bradley Manning type of the Edward Snowden type, as well as leaks to friendly and not-so-friendly intelligence services.
Which doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Or that if it's a good idea it can't be a bad idea at the same time. Every tough decision has both desirable and undesirable consequences, the problem is that people aren't comfortable with that. In fact they shouldn't be. But they like to wrap themse
Re: (Score:3)
I don't fetishize the US Constitution; a lot of it (like the electoral college) is pretty half-assed. It's not surprising, because they didn't have a lot of models of a formal republican constitution to build upon. But the one thing about it that's really brilliant about the US Constitution is the notion of checks and balances. The powers you give the government are always dangerous, so you encumber their use by harnessing the natural instinct of institutions to guard their prerogatives. That's genius.
No, i
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, lots of other stuff in the Constitution is just a mess, especially the Electoral College bit. Face it, the document is archaic and needs to be replaced with something newer. It was a good try in the late 1700s when there weren't many other non-monarchy republics around, but other countries have had several centuries now to try out other stuff and they've found some better ways.
Then I suggest every eligible American to vote and cast a firm suggestion for president.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand that the FBI will soon have a treasure-trove of iPhone data, a true fountain of data that will be of endless fascination to the other security agencies. You took a dick-pic? Expect it to be in every security database from here to Timbuktu, within the year. Showed your titties? That's going on the cubicle walls of the CIA!
Re: (Score:2)
Finger prints and criminal records are shared, as well as the dna. So what else is missing? "Bad breath?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No.
He's claiming one reason he won't be impeached is because would-be impeachers are afraid of being called racists.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have missed Rockoon's point.
As he is replying to "why isn't there interest in impeaching Obama?" with "Because Racism", logically he is saying that racism protects Obama.
Few people denounce the racism of minorities versus other minorities or versus the majority because they do not want to be called racist for "picking" on a minority. Thus racism protects Obama in some ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If racism was a problem, he would not have been elected to begin with.
Did you happen to hear a loud "whoosh" as you posted? Just curious.
Ummm... no. (Score:4, Informative)
There IS a movement to impeach Obama on exactly those grounds... except that is not the priority reason OR the main reason.
Nor is there anything to that spying on people wrong - it's Obama who is abusing the Patriot Act, not the Patriot Act that is abusive.
But they do manage to make brown babies one of the reasons... no... Make that the only reason everyone [wikipedia.org] actually agrees on.
Hmm... Maybe you're right.
Maybe racism IS the main motivator for why there IS a petition to impeach Obama.
http://www.teaparty.org/impeac... [teaparty.org]
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS:
Let it be known that I stand with the Tea Party and demand that impeachment proceedings be brought against President Barack Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Failing to protect American citizens in the Libyan embassy in Benghazi and purposefully allowing them to be tortured and murdered in cold blood. Cries for help were ignored. Pleas for ground support were brushed off. While American ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues were being slaughtered at the hands of murderers, Obama turned a blind eye and went to bed, blaming a YouTube video for the attack.
While âoejustice will be servedâ has resonated from his lips, nothing has been done to bring justice for this crime. Instead, it has been swept under the carpet. Now the Obama State Department is compounding the crimes against our diplomats and military by intimidating government civilian and military personnel into not testifying.
2. Blatant abuse and misuse of the true intention of the PATRIOT Act. Obama and is administration deem it acceptable to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens by reading our e-mail, tracking our Internet visits, comparing notes with the IRS about our taxes and âoeminingâ our every purchase. These are egregious violations of our right to privacy.
3. Outright brutal assaults on the First Amendment by the Obama Justice Department. Those who are held accountable to the highest extend of the law chose to break the law by illegally wiretapping phone lines and cell phone conversations and invading email accountsâ"spyingâ"on members of the press and accusing reporters doing their job of being criminals.
4. Under Obamaâ(TM)s ruling hand, the Internal Revenue Service purposefully, knowingly and willingly targeted conservatives and Tea Party members, delaying their non-profit status and then lying to Congress about their activities.
5. Repeatedly hiding illegal Federal activities, such as the Justice Departmentâ(TM)s âoeFast and Furiousâ program where guns were handed to KNOWN criminals and members of Mexican drug cartels then used to kill our own border agents. Obama acolytes still continue to lie to Congress and the citizens of the United States about the gun-running operation.
6. For purposefully, willfully and wrongfully putting a bounty on the heads of 22 Navy Seals aboard a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. Obama knowingly sent those Seals to their deaths that fateful day then had his military brass issue orders to cremate the bodies for no reason. Despite the outright lies told to the American people, those men did not all die aboard that helicopter that day. Eight Navy Seals jumped out alive and fought for their lives. Again, no backup reinforcementsâ"only a team of Afghans that were waiting to ambush them. Despite false promises of âoejusticeâ by the president, nothing has been done.
7. For constant violations of the regulatory and law-making processâ"end running Congress with Executive Orders after theyâ(TM)ve voted down bills and making appointments while the Senate was in session, effectively violating the Constitution of the United States of America.
8. Allowing criminals to go unchecked a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There IS a movement to impeach Obama on exactly those grounds... except that is not the priority reason OR the main reason.
Nor is there anything to that spying on people wrong - it's Obama who is abusing the Patriot Act, not the Patriot Act that is abusive.
I don't agree with that conclusion. If the Patriot Act weren't abusive to begin with it would not be possible to use it like that.
Anything the government is allowed to do will always be stretched to the extreme. (Well, this is true for everyone else too, if it is barely legal it will be done.)
If the government says "Oh, this law technically allows for this, but we won't go that far." then they are lying.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be justified to impeach Obama, but he is using the Patriot Act for it's i
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, Meringuoid's Law in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Because racism
Obama is not not impeached because people would cry racism. Get real here.
No President of the United States will ever be impeached for violations of the Fourth Amendment, even if some interpretations of the Fourth Amendment are violated.
Courts determine which actors are in violation of of what interpretation and given modern US governmental bureaucratic structures and processes, the President of the United States is very unlikely to ever be identified as one of the principal actors responsible for governme
Re: (Score:2)
It's only to say this is not a matter of red or blue but a matter of state and citizen, and our efforts and analyses should always take this into consideration.
Re: (Score:1)
You DO realise that POTUS probably has the LEAST power in Washington DC?
Watch some more West Wing, and learn!
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell isn't there interest in impeaching Obama for the rampant violations of the fourth amendment under his watch?
Because it doesn't affect people's daily lives. If it was in their face they might notice, but it's not. Besides, at least half of them have been so propagandized they think whatever has to be done to "keep us safe" is appropriate. You don't want to be killed by ISIS affiliated Mexican rapists pouring over our southern border do you?
Panopticon (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you President Obama for making govt surveillance of the citizenry the new normal, I'm sure with a history of political characters like McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon etc. that this won't be abused in the future.
Can you spot the similarities? (Score:5, Interesting)
From Wiki
1984 is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949. The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged elite of the Inner Party, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime."
The tyranny is epitomised by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power." The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue in Newspeak), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line. The instructions that the workers receive specify the corrections as fixing misquotations and never as what they really are: forgeries and falsifications. A large part of the ministry also actively destroys all documents that have been edited and do not contain the revisions; in this way, no proof exists that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker but secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother.
As literary political fiction and dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Room 101, telescreen, 2 + 2 = 5, and memory hole, have entered into common use since its publication in 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which describes official deception, secret surveillance and manipulation of recorded history by a totalitarian or authoritarian state.
Re: (Score:1)
Cult of personality?
There was quite a bit for Obama - initially. Now, it's Trump and Sanders.
We have the author of the movie Idiocracy has turned into a "documentary". [huffingtonpost.com]
Much of the popularity of Trump and Sanders is backlash against the political class - the career poltiicians and dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons. They have not represented us little people very well. While the World's economy becomes more and more integrated, we little people here in the US do not seem to be getting the benefits; it's
Re: (Score:2)
Most people want bigger govt. They like regulation- if its regulating the other guy. When the big guns of govt turn towards their hobbies or interests, then they get a taste of their own medicine (and usually carve out exemptions).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure with a history of political characters like McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon etc. that this won't be abused in the future. /s
The amazing thing with the NSA program is how quickly it was abused. Almost every abuse you can think of has already happened, and almost as soon as the program was implemented. Love INT? Yup. Spying on politicians? Yup. Influencing elections? Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Police say NDA prevents them from getting a warrant for stingray use.
What if I sign an NDA with my recipient, that would prevent the police from getting a warrant, right?
Comment removed (Score:3)
The collection of data is the problem (Score:1)
I don't think the NSA sharing the data they collect is the problem. The
real problem lies in what data the NSA--as a government agency with
special powers--collects. Could making some of this more public be the
thing that finally leads to a change in the NSA's blanket surveillance
over citizens? (Actually, I'm not that hopeful.)
Re: (Score:2)
Color of law was then used with the Freedom act, PATRIOT Act, Transit authority, certification, Executive order's, Special procedures to get around any protections and limitations for bulk domestic collect it all.
STORMBREW, COWBOY, BLARNEY, FAIRVIEW, PRISM, MUSCULAR.
Unreal (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow and he's a Democrat? Scary
Bit like the Labour government we had here with Tony Blair, socialist morals led to the most authoritarian government in the UK since the war.
Socialism doesn't understand privacy or rights of the individual, you keep hearing about "the greater good".......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Most socialist regimes are authoritarian on this planet. This is the only way they can hold the power.
By definition socialist and related factions have to be authoritarian.
Let's go over the 1920's socio-economic theory debate again:
Capitalism: the baseline, those who came up with the term used it to apply to everything from a mildly constrained market (like lead to the roaring '20s in the USA) to medieval serfdom arrangements.
Communism: an unenforced and unenforceable ideal of societal cooperation
Socialism: a heavily enforced model where all industry is directly run by the central planning authority
Fascism
Re: (Score:2)
Democrat = big govt, authoritarian
Republican = (supposed to be for) smaller govt
The libertarian wing of the Republican party is non-authoritarian, the neo conservative is authoritarian.
I've often thought the neo conservatives share more with the Democrats than the right wing. I think they just want the big govt but without the taxes.
Re:Unreal, "Socialism" and privacy right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You first:
No, China isn't fascist.
Mere state ownership of the means of production is Socialism [wikipedia.org], or it's variants [wikipedia.org].
In contrast, Fascism is not the state ownership of business, but rather than the business ownership of the state. An important distinction. It also has several other factors that cannot be ignored, with the result that Fascism is both an economic model AND a political model falling under the authoritarian heading. In comparison Socialism is almost entirely an economy model, with very little polit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the devil is in the details, as they say.
If you did a serious analysis of what went wrong with US security in the run up to 9/11, one of the many things that might have stopped it was if the CIA had told the FBI that known Al Qaeda operatives were in the US. In fact the CIA knew that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing had met with two if the 9/11 bombers, but lied to the FBI when the FBI team investigating the Cole asked about it.
Why did they lie? Two reasons. The first was that the CIA has a
Re: (Score:2)
Wow and he's a Democrat? Scary
Bit like the Labour government we had here with Tony Blair, socialist morals led to the most authoritarian government in the UK since the war.
Socialism doesn't understand privacy or rights of the individual, you keep hearing about "the greater good".......
How is this related to Socialism? Is the NSA Socialist?
Re: (Score:1)
Left and Right (Score:5, Interesting)
The elites in this country are quick to frame everything in terms of "left" and "right", "Liberal" versus "Conservative", and so on.
I've come to the realization that this is a false distinction, made to distract people from the issues and give the illusion of choice.
The real choice is populist (in the interests of the people) and non-populist (to the interests of anyone else).
Both Liberals and Conservatives in this country are on the non-populist end of that spectrum. All bad government actions have bipartisan support, whether it's H1B visa programs taking away our jobs, Patriot act(s) taking away our rights, our 3rd world health care, draconian IP laws passed by secret treaty, killing citizens without trial, secret laws, secret lists... it goes on and on.
What good does it do to argue that D's are better than R's when neither side will present a unified front on our behalf?
Take up the cause and tell us how such-and-so was Bush's fault. Someone will point out that the Democrats controlled congress during that time. Someone else will point out that the bill's opposition was mostly Democratic.
Therefore we should vote for the D's - they're always on the correct side of a losing battle.
One way out is to always vote against the incumbent. If enough people do this and the pols realize that a non-populist term will be their only term, we'll eventually see change.
This election presents a rare choice of two populist candidates: Bernie and Donald. It's apparent that neither is traditionally "left" or "right", so if one of them wins we might get some actual change.
Pay no attention to the name callers you see in the media, or even on Slashdot - that's just the elites trying to sway your vote by emotional means.
Look at their policies, and ask the question: if this policy were implemented, would the *people* benefit?
If the answer is "yes", then that's the candidate we need.
Re: (Score:1)
Both equally bad...
Left
1) Secretary of state uses private email, deletes half of them after they are subpoenaed by Congress investigating one of her employee's death.
2) Refusal to hand over a gun running program's documents, subpoenaed by Congress.
3) Using the IRS to censor political opponents in the year of a presidential election.
4) Had intelligence agencies delete emails about progress of dealing with ISIS to hide what is going on.
5) Lied to Congress about collecting information on every US citizens' pho
Re: (Score:1)
Now remember, deleting 18 minutes of audio was sufficient to impeach
I do remember. He was never impeached, he resigned.
Only two presidents have ever been impeached; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Both equally bad...
Left 1) Secretary of state uses private email, deletes half of them after they are subpoenaed by Congress investigating one of her employee's death. 2) Refusal to hand over a gun running program's documents, subpoenaed by Congress. 3) Using the IRS to censor political opponents in the year of a presidential election. 4) Had intelligence agencies delete emails about progress of dealing with ISIS to hide what is going on. 5) Lied to Congress about collecting information on every US citizens' phone calls.
Right 1) Deleted 18 minutes of an audio tape to cover up an office break in.
Yea, they are both equally as bad. Now remember, deleting 18 minutes of audio was sufficient to impeach and destroy the reputation of a former president (who wasn't involved in the original office break in).
Really, for the Right all you can come up with is Nixon? Ooookay.
You seem to have missed Okian Warrior's point. And that's a shame because it's a good one. People of various political stripes are fed up with a status quo that serves almost only the Elite. Thus we see the rise of Trump and Sanders. They have appeal as "outsiders". People seem to have figured out that it's not a much about Right and Left as it is Inside and Outside. That is, the real difference in America is whether you are on the insi
CALL FOR INFO: domestic NSA dark fiber (Score:2)
(cross post [slashdot.org])
CURIOUS as to how much 'dark fiber' the NSA may be leasing within the United States for purely domestic purposes, and where. If there are any Mark Kleins [wikipedia.org] out there who have noticed anything funny, do share! This includes fiber leased to anything you may suspect is a shell corporation, for which you (the technician) can see that the paperwork is a bit odd; or an unusual number of individual fibers terminating in a locked room, where the normal requirement is a few.
With the rise of cloud computi
Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know this survalience hasn't really poanned out in regards to stopping "terrorism", look at France, San Berndino.
So I am left scratching my head exactly what use is this data?
I mean it's really only useful to spy on your population this way if you believe them to be the threat.
But why would a nation force fed illegal immigration, the shipping of jobs overseas, the repeated financial thefts by large banks who were then bailed out, illegal wars, and a massive growing security apparatus costing billions being built next to crumbling public infrastructure be a threat?
Re: (Score:2)
You know this survalience hasn't really poanned out in regards to stopping "terrorism", look at France, San Berndino.
So I am left scratching my head exactly what use is this data?
I mean it's really only useful to spy on your population this way if you believe them to be the threat.
But why would a nation force fed illegal immigration, the shipping of jobs overseas, the repeated financial thefts by large banks who were then bailed out, illegal wars, and a massive growing security apparatus costing billions being built next to crumbling public infrastructure be a threat?
Heh, exactly. The powers that be know they are heating the pot and it will someday boil over. They just don't want to stop and are planning to try and contain it. It won't work forever.
"Permitting"? as if the CIA would (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Any attempt to evade will be deemed as criminal (Score:2)
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... [theatlantic.com]
Who owns the data? (Score:2)
Is this not treason? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So... (Score:2)
Another bad idea (Score:2)
If raw data is allowed to go straight to ppl within FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. that increases the possibility of abuse exponentially.
"concerned" (Score:1)
Let's begin w/ the Federal Government (Score:1)