Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 16 2017, @01:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the now-they're-all-watching-you dept.

If you thought government surveillance was bad already, it just got worse. A lot worse.

[T]he Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along.

[...] Executive Order 12333, often referred to as "twelve triple-three," has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA's most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA's other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo's data centers overseas, and more.

In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans.

[...] But this massive database inevitably includes vast amount of American's communications — swept up when they speak to people abroad, when they go abroad themselves, or even if their domestic communications are simply routed abroad. That's why access was previously limited to data that had already been screened to remove unrelated information and information identifying U.S. persons. The new rules still ostensibly limit access to authorized foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes — not ordinary law enforcement purposes — and require screening before they are more widely shared. But privacy activists are skeptical.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Monday January 16 2017, @02:18PM

    by Arik (4543) on Monday January 16 2017, @02:18PM (#454375) Journal
    That seems a fair criticism so far and I agree this process should be watched carefully.

    Ultimately he seems like the kind of guy that will appoint someone he disagrees with but respects, but still expect that guy to defer to him the ultimate decisions and back them the same.

    Some of the people he's appointing seem very unlikely to behave that way, but we still don't know if they will bend to his will, bend him to theirs, or simply wind up resigning when the incompatibilities come to the fore.

    At this point, only time will tell.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @02:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @02:55PM (#454382)

    As you say, "time will tell", so I haven't been following his appointments much yet but I know of one possible counterpoint so far: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Trump wants Kennedy to "lead a new government commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity". Kennedy has no educational background in immunology, microbiology, biology, medicine, or science (BA in American History and Literature and a JD). Kennedy believes that vaccines cause autism and that there is a government conspiracy to cover it up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Views_on_autism_and_vaccines [wikipedia.org]
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/anti-vaccine-activist-trump-immunizations.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 16 2017, @03:14PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Monday January 16 2017, @03:14PM (#454384)

      Well, *if* there are any issues of safety or scientific integrity, such a person might be just what you need to uncover it.

      Of course, they're also just the sort of person you'd want to launch a witch hunt that will end with the restoration of such poor endangered species as whooping cough and cholera.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @03:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @03:48PM (#454393)

        Well, *if* there are any issues of safety or scientific integrity, such a person might be just what you need to uncover it.

        I would actually argue it to be the other way around - if you were trying to cover-up a conspiracy of tax fraud, then someone with no training in any mathematical field would be less likely to find discrepancies. Should Kennedy perform a code-audit looking for foreign-spy-agency backdoors in government used software (maybe Trump should appoint Clinton for this)?

        Lacking any understanding of science or medicine, does not automatically qualify someone as an objective observer. Choosing someone who has no qualifications and has publicly declared their biased view does not encourage the idea of an objective observer.

        • (Score: 2) by arslan on Monday January 16 2017, @11:28PM

          by arslan (3462) on Monday January 16 2017, @11:28PM (#454599)

          Ummm... you just made a non-point:

          Lacking any understanding of science or medicine, does not automatically qualify someone as an objective observer.

          True, so is the flip side, i.e. having the understanding does automatically qualify someone to be an objective observer either. Having the means doesn't dismiss a person's prejudices nor their incompetence.

          Choosing someone who has no qualifications and has publicly declared their biased view does not encourage the idea of an objective observer.

          Only the second part is true. Again whether someone has qualifications or not has no bearing on their objectivity. Their biases on the other hand do.

          However I believe the parent's point was, if a person is biased but not a blind zealot, it may actually be a good thing. They'll start from the position of looking for dirt based on their biases, but if they eventually find nothing and is man enough to say "Well shits and sizzles, I've been barking up the wrong tree", then it is actually a productive thing. I suppose, the question is whether Trump is a good judge of character.

          We know for sure he isn't an idiot. No idiot can get this far on pure luck...

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @01:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @01:43AM (#454663)

            you just made a non-point

            I was arguing against the point that Kennedy is "just what you need" to uncover safety issues with vaccines. I mentioned that he is not knowledgeable in relevant fields and that he is already biased in favor of a particular conclusion. I further mentioned that his lack of qualifications is not some sort of advantage (being an outsider is sometimes equated with being objective).

            qualifications or not has no bearing on their objectivity

            Correct, but knowledge does have bearing on their ability to observe. It also has bearing on their ability to judge the quality of arguments and data. This has clearly left Kennedy susceptible to believing a conspiracy theory started by a man who was paid to find a conclusion, failed to disclose conflicts of interest, and fabricated data to further his own self interests.

            looking for dirt based on their biases

            This can lead to finding things that aren't really there and ignoring things that don't fit their bias (e.g. other non-autism related issues).

            the question is whether Trump is a good judge of character [...] isn't an idiot

            No, it isn't.
            Just as you rightly argued (not that I intended to claim) that knowledge doesn't necessarily imply competence or objectivity, being smart or a good judge of character does not imply that someone is immune to bias, will have a perfect record in judgement, or will even intend to choose the best person.