Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Administration Set To Expand Sharing of Data That NSA Intercepts

Comments Filter:
  • Wow! Just Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deadwill69 ( 1683700 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:02AM (#51590687)
    I can not even begin to imagine the implications this will have. Let the fishing begin!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What's the complaint? Didn't he promise to be more transparent? He didn't say with whom

    • This is going to unleash far more parallel construction. I can see the way the courts will see this:
      "parallel construction is bad!. But you must prove that parallel construction has taken place before we will throw out this evidence."
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      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

      • 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

        • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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!

    • Finger prints and criminal records are shared, as well as the dna. So what else is missing? "Bad breath?"

  • Panopticon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sasparillascott ( 1267058 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:06AM (#51590705)
    The former East German Stasi would be proud.

    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. /s
    • by buck-yar ( 164658 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:14AM (#51590747)

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

    • 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.

  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:26AM (#51590809)

    We had one [wikipedia.org] for a little while, but rather than reform CIFA it was shut down in a hurry.

    We need something like CIFA because having the FBI do both general law enforcement and counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism makes it too hard to prevent intelligence products from landing in general law enforcement operations.

    The agency doesn't need to be big. In fact, it should be the smallest member of the intelligence community because virtually none of our "domestic threats" are anything more than ordinary hate crimes that belong to the states and FBI. Even most of the hate crimes by Muslims that have been prevented aren't strictly speaking relevant because they're just people trying to act on ISIS propaganda, not a real nexus to ISIS. That too is the domain of the FBI.

    You know what would be the domain of a domestic intel agency would be the Saudi and Qatari funding of extremist mosques on our soil. Or Russian espionage. Things that actually have a nexus between domestic and foreign, so there would be a domestic agency that could work hand in hand with the CIA and NSA to hunt down the domestic side of international threats without involving ordinary law enforcement.

  • 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.)

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      That all came out in the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and the US finally thought its telco The Fourth Amendment issues fixed.
      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)

    by bigbrownepaul ( 794162 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:27AM (#51590817) Homepage

    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".......

    • Being leftist or rightist has nothing to do with an authoritarian regime. Both sides are likely to support such a regime for different reasons. Most socialist regimes are authoritarian on this planet. This is the only way they can hold the power.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

    • Uh, "Socialism doesn't understand privacy or rights of the individual". I think there is a very basic misunderstanding of what socialism is. Which is a system of economic priorities. China is even more capitalist than the USA (if you look at the actual culture and not the labels...might find a visit interesting..). And we all know how much the Chinese Party values the rights of the individual (or even the community). The USA hasn't really valued the rights of the individual since the "so called" Patriot Act
      • China's far from capitalist. It's a fascist oligarchy, where the dominant industries and companies are majority-or-wholly State owned, and the rest are heavily regulated to the benefit of the State and State-owned entities. And it's all contolled by 2000 families in Beijing who make up the National People's Congress, who use their personal connections/influence to get the Premier and President to do what they want (where the real power resides).
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      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

    • 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?

    • Um, Democrats are the intellectual heirs to Joseph Stalin so why is this surprising?
  • Left and Right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:37AM (#51590849) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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.

      • 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

  • (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)

    by koan ( 80826 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @10:03AM (#51590991)

    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?

    • 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.

  • The CIA Isn't exactly known for sharing. not sure this will mean anything at all on a practical level. Sounds like it's an attempt to shift accountability for secrets to the CIA instead of the executive branch.
    • Sorry, misread, my bad.. Of course the word "allow" suggests it's voluntary. But of the CIA wants other agencies to collaborate and they are being allowed without any checks? Although I maintain the CIA is not really into sharing, I suppose they might trade, or even "sell" for other info in return.
  • I imagine there's going to be a flurry of DMCA take down notices if any of the data can even remotely be copyrighted.
  • Obama calls Edward Snowden a traitor for sharing the same info that he himself is about to share. Therefore, is not Obama a traitor by his own logic?
  • if a nation no longer respects its own constitution, and no longer cares for the well-being and concerns of its citizens, what are the citizens to do?
  • I am all in favor of NSA doing the job that they do. However, the reason that it works well, is that they have NO REAL POWER. As such, it limits the possibility for real abuse.
    If raw data is allowed to go straight to ppl within FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. that increases the possibility of abuse exponentially.
  • "Civil libertarians are concerned." Um, yeah.
  • They should begin by releasing only and all information directly related to those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution: any member of the White House staff, all members of Congress, all federal judges and all federal law enforcement officials, especially the NSA and FBI. Only once all that data has been released and thoroughly scrutinized by the free press should they consider releasing any data on private citizens. If the feds have nothing to hide, they should have no objection or concerns.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...