SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday January 16 2017, @11:28PM
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
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.