Slashdot Mirror

In the U.S. being "born alive" is defined by Federal Statute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Some information about differences by nation is contained on page 7 of this Congressional Research Service report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf

This is nearly a decade old, so some changes may have occurred.

'This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protesters organizing with the Occupy movement These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.'

A highly decorated Marine Corps General, and one of only a handful of men to receive the Medal of Honor twice wrote:

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

-- General Smedley Butler

Try buying Tritium. It's 85x the cost per gram of the Bee venom.

you obviously know absolutely nothing at all about the subject. ... "Other than dogs, the military would never be interested in pack animals." Oh really?

http://www.veteransmagazine.com/membersarea/MagazineIssues/06thmag/hayburners.pdf
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/special_forces_use_of_pack_ani.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Army_manual_on_using_horses_mules_0130.html

Do you just make up crap and hope that nobody notices that you have no clue at all about what you are saying?

Pu-238 is not used in nuclear explosives proper but some nuclear weapons use a Pu-238 fueled RTG as a power source (see RCED-97-52, section "ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCES").

Historically most Pu-238 was produced for security applications. The space program was a minor user. The end of the cold war caused a dramatic reduction in the number of weapons. Thus the existing stockpile plus the Pu-238 recovered from dismantled weapons constituted a more than adequate reserve that rendered continued production unnecessary.

Today they are comparatively few weapons and most have migrated to different power sources. Hence the space program can no longer count on the nuclear weapons program to "subsidize" production. If it wants more Pu-238 it will have to cover a large portion of the cost of restarting production. We can thus expect RTGs to be used less often than in the past.

I'm delighted to hear that while NASA is underfunded to the point where they've needed to cancel maintenance of the Hubble and the James Webb telescope is on the verge of being scrapped, our spy organization is so overflowing with money that they can make two Hubble equivalents which are, apparently, redundant next to all of their other money and toys.

Well, yes. Who did you think paid all the R&D bills for space in the first place?

The Mercury capsules were launched on ICBMs, remember. And with shenanigans like GRAB going on since 1960, one could be forgiven for wondering if there have ever been any actual "pure science" missions in the US space fleet at all.

The dual-use of "civilian" spaceflight and the primacy of military uses for space has never been a secret, most of this information is open-source and available in plenty of dry academic websites if you really want to know. But much of the US citizenry seem to enjoy believing in a gentle apolitical space fairy which exists only to take harmless pictures of nebulae and launch GPS and Internet relay satellites. It seems easier than confronting the funding reality.

Same as the National Ignition Facility exists for "fusion power research" in the brochures. There is a lot of power generated in a boosted fission weapon, so technically it's not a lie.

http://www.fas.org/irp/official.html

Wow. You guys are so fucked!

There is no such AI around YET.

Just as there's no such rogue biotech yet or nuclear war yet.

Then I wonder why DOD is publishing directives about them?

They aren't called AI, they're called "autonomous weapons" and the Pentagon has been funding projects since the 50's.

That means they know exactly where it was launched from too.
Accurate automated retaliation next perhaps?

It's called 'Counter-Battery" ...and yes, it exists:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-tpq-36.htm

There was a huge problem with the Patriot system early on where the tracking computers lost so much accuracy even after only running continuously for 8 hours that the system would fail to intercept threats. The short term solution was to reboot the system at regular intervals.
 
  GAO Report: Patriot Missile Defense (Official report)
 
  Patriot Missile Software Problem
 
  Round off errors and the Patriot missile

So, we are supposed to take government propaganda as fact? Why should we let them have all the fun? What's good for the goose...

We have a right not to be tracked, regardless of your hysteria about 'criminals'.

Because, if you (as the government) insist on getting your money back for a program you cancel after overruns and delays, you get unending lawsuits and are stuck in litigation for several decades. There's a better way to do things, to be sure, but payment on delivery (or from another perspective, 100% refunds) are out of the question for cases in which much of the cost has been sunk into hundreds of man-months of up-front professional (engineers, developers) labor or even purely scientific research.

Major projects in software and aerospace, especially when boundaries are being pushed (frequently, though not always, the case in aerospace--less so in ERP), can require a lot of up-front investment before a single product roles off the line. The B-2, for example, has a flyaway cost of $555M, but the total program cost $44B. We call it NRE--non-recoverable expenditure--and if there were absolutely no guarantees regardless of outcome, boundaries would never be pushed by interested parties of a certain size (i.e., DoD / enterprise software corporations / aerospace companies) because such entities are, by their, nature, VERY risk-averse.

Because, if you (as the government) insist on getting your money back for a program you cancel after overruns and delays, you get unending lawsuits and are stuck in litigation for several decades. There's a better way to do things, to be sure, but payment on delivery (or from another perspective, 100% refunds) are out of the question for cases in which much of the cost has been sunk into hundreds of man-months of up-front professional (engineers, developers) labor or even purely scientific research.

Major projects in software and aerospace, especially when boundaries are being pushed (frequently, though not always, the case in aerospace--less so in ERP), can require a lot of up-front investment before a single product roles off the line. The B-2, for example, has a flyaway cost of $555M, but the total program cost $44B. We call it NRE--non-recoverable expenditure--and if there were absolutely no guarantees regardless of outcome, boundaries would never be pushed by interested parties of a certain size (i.e., DoD / enterprise software corporations / aerospace companies) because such entities are, by their, nature, VERY risk-averse.

You're right, according to this source:

10,000 feet (3.046 kilometers)

However, I was thinking of a descending or ascending flight leaving an airport, many of which are at the water's edge. We have enough problems with people shining laser pointers at these planes.

You seem to be generally misinformed on this matter, so here are a few things. The Congress passed the resolution noted in the following document: Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks. The Supreme Court of the United States has held this type of Congressional authorization to be equivalent to a declaration of war. If you join the enemy making war on the United States, you can be captured or killed under the law of war - no trial is necessary beforehand. All of your hand waving on these matters is just that. Your lack of familiarity with the personal involvement of an enemy combatant with attacks or attempted attacks doesn't change or weaken the findings against them.

As an American citizen you don't have a Constitutional right to join a terrorist group and attack the United States or its allies. If you join with them, you will be treated like them, i.e. captured or killed as possible or necessary. Renegade Americans may be the most dangerous of all since they know the ins and outs of American society, and can identify weak points for attack, and coach would-be attackers to be more effective. If you go renegade, you accept the consequences of war. If you want a nice trial, then surrender so that charges can be prepared and a trial set.

There is no great mystery about why Al Awlaki was killed. The man actively recruited for Al Qaida, was directly tied to numerous people making attacks, and was apparently involved in planning attacks. The man was an enemy of the American people, whom he plotted to kill in large numbers, an enemy of the state that he hoped to help destroy, and an enemy of humanity as a stateless terrorist, the very kin to pirates, hostis humani generis. Is slavery far behind?

I do not support many of President Obama's policies, but he is correct in this one, and against that man.

The United States is not rounding up or making war against people who insult the First Lady, or the President, but rather against actual and would be mass murderers, terrorists, war criminals. It is quite amazing to me that so many people get this elementary question wrong, this isn't even close to being hard to understand. Somehow I expect you will amaze me again.

If that were true, it would have already happened by now. I mean, wtf are the US's enemies waiting for?

Here's what someone said back in 1998:

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRED THOMPSON
CHAIRMAN

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

MAY 19, 1998

"WEAK COMPUTER SECURITY IN GOVERNMENT: IS THE PUBLIC AT RISK?"

The Governmental Affairs Committee today is holding the first of a series of hearings on the security of federal computer systems. The potential benefits promised by computers are contrasted with inherent risks to our security and public safety. While advances in computing power potentially can remake how the government does business and how future wars are fought, it also creates vulnerabilities which must be reduced. Today’s hearing will address the darker side of the information revolution while exploring how we can better protect government information.

Computers are changing our lives faster then any other invention in our history. Our society is becoming increasingly dependent on information technologies, which are changing at an amazing rate. Consider a couple of examples:

The singing greeting cards which you buy today for $2 have more computing power then existed in the world before 1950.

A video camera which you buy today for less then $1000 has more computing power then a 1960s computer the size of this room.

Combine this rapid explosion in computing power with the fact that information systems are being connected together around the world without regard to geographic boundaries. The increasing ability of computers talking to each other offers both opportunities and challenges.

In today’s hearing, we will discuss these challenges. We will hear that the nature of this challenge comes from the fact that our nation’s underlying information infrastructure is riddled with vulnerabilities which represent severe security flaws and risks to our nation’s security, public safety and personal privacy.

While "hacker attacks" receive much media attention, what worries me are the attacks that go unknown. The nature of attacks in the information age seems to allow a malicious individual or group to reach out and inflict extensive damage from the comfort and safety of their home.

We must ask whether we are becoming so dependent on communications links and electronic microprocessors that a determined adversary or terrorist could possibly shut down federal operations or damage the economy simply by attacking our computers.

At risk are systems that control power distribution and utilities, phones, air traffic, stock exchanges, the Federal Reserve, and taxpayers’ credit and medical records. Unfortunately, government agencies are ill-prepared to address the situation. We as a nation cannot wait for the "Pearl Harbor" of the information age. We must increase our vigilance to tackle this problem before we are hit with a surprise attack.

Our witnesses today have substantial knowledge about what the problems really are and can recommend solutions. First, Dr. Peter Neumann, a recognized private-sector expert on computer security, will provide the Committee with an overview of information security issues and testify on the systemic security problems in the government’s computer systems.

Then we will hear from L0pht -- seven members of a "hacker think tank" who identify security weaknesses in computer systems in an effort to persuade companies to design more secure systems. L0pht members will testify about specific weaknesses which enable hackers to exploit the nation’s information infrastructure and government information.

Excuse me if I can't take the government seriously about preventing a cyber "Pearl Harbor". What'll happen is that there will be some attack w

... GPS software also generates wrong results under acceleration to discourage DIY missile systems ...
You got a source for that assertion?

There's an International Trafficking in Arms Regulation which designates as weapons GPS systems "designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater" (i.e. for ICBMs) or "Designed or modified for use with unmanned air vehicle systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km" (i.e. for cruise missiles). The second one is kind of pointless, since there's no way the GPS system can tell. The first one, though, is implemented in most GPS units. High altitude balloon experimenters and rocket guidance system companies have workarounds.

Yes, it is rocket science.

Egads, $13BN is a horrifying price. The current mission to Mars was $2.6BN, and that's with a kickass rover flying itself to the surface.

Are these really just weather satellites?

A good question.

Given that there have been many examples of DoD "piggybacking" military functions onto "pure science" missions before (starting from GRAB and continuing through TDRSS), and that polar orbits are very valuable for planetary mapping of all kinds, tricky and expensive to launch into, and very dangerous if not strictly controlled, because of the danger of intersecting any amount of space junk and going 'splat' - I'd lay somegood money that most of these "weather" satellites are actually dual-mission beasties. Because if you're launching into polar anyway, and pointing cameras at the Earth, why wouldn't you get your money's worth?

That's my complete uninformed layman's view, but I'd guess there's DoD money funding most of these.

Yes, Bush possessed satanic powers that let him in on things nobody else knew. But if you want to be an idiot, go right ahead.

Speaking of idiots... did you know only Congress can declare war on another nation? You might want to brush up on your recent history, since it's a well known fact (among those of us who don't suffer from selective memory) that Bush invaded Iraq prior to getting a Congressional declaration of war. So, you know, pot, kettle, all that jazz.

Which is well within the powers granted by the "War Powers Act".

Interesting article on that very topic.

Funny thing about Bush invoking the War Powers Act - even though he used it to his advantage, according to the Congressional Research Service, he still maintained it was unconstitutional to do so.

That had to be a real head-scratcher for the hard-line Constitutionalists who supported Bush... true origin of the Tea Party, perhaps?

"It is not illegal for Israel to exist"

I support and defend Israel's right to exist!!!

"What nation is Hezbollah a member of? Iran."

Member? Hezbollah probably still is financed from Iran or at least used to be. That doesn't make them any better. Shit is shit from wherever it comes. I do not support Hezbollah, while I do support the Palestinians' right to a nation; yes, this is getting complex. Still, Iran is not Arabic, which doesn't make anything easier ... as you know.

"Who tried to assassinate the ambassador of Sauda Arabia. Iran."

Probably anyone or no-one, but not necessarily Iranians. Whoever, but that never gave them the right to do it, of course. Likewise, the Israeli Stern group killed the UN ambassador Folke Bernadotte ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte) on the orders of an Israeli terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir).

"Yitzhak Shamir [...] was an Israeli politician and the seventh Prime Minister of Israel, serving two terms, 1983–84 and 1988–1992. Before the establishment of the State of Israel, Shamir was a member of the Stern gang, an organisation that was considered a terrorist group by Israel which broke away from the Haganah."

only to later on become the Prime Minister of Israel... Whoever gave that Israeli terrorist the right to move on? That wasn't allowed, either... Complex? Yes, Sir. Israelis aren't allowed to kill foreign people either...

I support Israel's right to exist but condemn the repeated behavior of several Israeli governments as well as any Iranian threats in writing or speech over Israel's right to exist. Does that make me a leftist? No. Does it make me a supporter of Hezbollah? No. But it makes me wonder why, why, WHY do all these religiously slanted governments still exist?!

Israel needs support, yes. But so does Palestine. From what I understand, the US supports Israel:

"$3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since World War II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations

whereas, technically:

"Palestine – United States relations are not diplomatic relations in the normal sense, since the United States does not recognize Palestine as a state, and the U.S. government is very cautious not to define relations with it as fully diplomatic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Still, according to http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf

"From FY2008 to the present, annual U.S. bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip has averaged nearly $600 million, including annual averages of approximately $200 million in direct budgetary assistance and approximately $100 million in non-lethal security assistance for the PA in the West Bank. The remainder—approximately $300 million on average per year—is dedicated to project assistance for the West Bank and Gaza through U.S. government grants to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Much of this assistance is in direct support of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s security, governance, development, and reform programs aimed at building Palestinian institutions in advance of statehood"

So, Palestine receives a large amount of money from the US alone, almost one fifth of what Israel receives. That is proportionally close:

"The population of Gaza Strip is about 1.7 million people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

"These data sets suggest that the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank in 2007 was approximately 1.5 millio

The Russians had a special class to be used as padded targets. The Bravo Class submarine was only used for training ASW forces.

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

Unfortunately, it is one of the contagions in our biological weapon program.

Just so everybody is clear. . .

Biological Weapons - (United States)

In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal. Research efforts were directed exclusively to the development of defensive measures such as diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for potential biological weapons threats. Stocks of pathogens and the entire biological arsenal were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973 under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Departments of Natural Resources of Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Small quantities of some pathogens were retained at Fort Detrick to test the efficacy of investigational preventive measures and therapies.

Factors influencing the decision to terminate the offensive biological program included pragmatic as well as moral and ethical considerations. Given the available conventional, chemical, and nuclear weapons, biological weapons were not considered essential for national security. The potential effects of biological weapons on military and civilian populations were still conjectural, and for obvious ethical and public health reasons, could not be empirically studied. Biological weapons were considered untried, unpredictable, and potentially hazardous for the users as well for those under attack. Field commanders and troops were unfamiliar with their use. In addition, the United States and allied countries had a strategic interest in outlawing biological weapons programs in order to prevent the proliferation of relatively low-cost weapons of mass destruction. By outlawing biological weapons, the arms race for weapons of mass destruction would be prohibitively expensive, given the expense of nuclear programs.

After the termination of the offensive biological program, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was established in order to continue the development of medical defenses for US military members against potential biological attack. USAMRIID conducts research to develop strategies, products, information, and training programs for medical defense against potential biological weapons. Endemic or epidemic infectious diseases due to highly virulent pathogens requiring high-level containment for laboratory safety are also studied. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified. The in-house programs are complemented by contract programs with universities and other research institutions.

Next Generation Bioweapons:Genetic Engineering and BW - The Former Soviet Union’s Biological Warfare Program

Despite signing the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), it is now certain that the former Soviet Union (FSU) continued a clandestine and illegal offensive biological weapons program until at least the early 1990s. Biopreparat (a huge military program with civilian cover) was organized to develop and weaponize biological agents for BW.3 It employed approximately half of the Soviet Union‘s 60,000 workers in more than 18 BW facilities, and in the 1980s had an annual budget equivalent to tens of millions of U.S. dollars.4 Unlike the American offensive BW program (1942-69) that worked primarily with organisms that were not contagious in humans (e.g., anth

Yeah, you crammed it pretty much in nutshell. Also, the DoD being involved would only compound this gargantuan shit-sandwich. I think it may be wise to think long and hard before trusting an unaccountable department that has likely spent more than 2/3 of the national-debt (10+ of 16 trillion) and essentially needs conflict to survive. And when their ghouls start wailing about Digital Blackwaters, thinking should yield to shunning altogether. It seems the Pentagon would be all too satisfied having a nation of under-educated poverty-stricken dunces quivering behind the World's greatest military force. I don't think we should put any more power in the hands of those who are eager to declare war over "cyber attacks" until they can learn to distinguish "war" from "crime" and "crime" from bogus-copyright and free-speech and "terrorism" from honest journalism.

Tell me this - what would happen if the Swedes show up at the Ecuadorian embassy, conduct their interview, and then say, "Yes, that is what we thought, you don't really have a good explanation for those events. This matter needs to go to trial. Please come with use." The next time Assange is questioned by Swedish prosecutors, that is the likely outcome, and the next steps in the Swedish legal system. Do you think he will come along? Or will he refuse, and then invent yet another reason why he cannot be held accountable like other men?

I would say Assange is rather transparent in his motives, and that is enough for justice to take its course. But don't worry, it shouldn't be hard to find someone else to hand out the secret rituals of college sororities. It will be more difficult to rebuild the Assange cult of personality.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.

Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.

In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.

On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. Last year, without permission, it published the full text of the highly regarded 2009 book about corruption in Kenya called “It’s Our Turn to Eat” by investigative reporter Michela Wrong (as first reported by Chris McGreal in The Guardian on April 9). By posting a pirated version of the book and making it freely available, WikiLeaks almost certainly disrupted sales of the book and made it harder for Ms. Wrong and other anti-corruption reporters to perform their important work and to get it published. Repeated protests and pleas from the author were required before WikiLeaks (to its credit) finally took the book offline.

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

According to the law, illegal aliens are entitled to Social Security if they have paid into the system.https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21732.pdf

It's quite a bit more complicated than that. They may or may not be able to collect, depending on many factors, such as what country they're living in, whether they ever had legal work status while they had a SSN, and so on. The details are all buried in the various editions of the Social Security Protection Act of [insert almost any year after 2000]. TL; DR.

Even legal permanent/temporary workers and US citizens who have paid into social security may not be able to receive benefits, depending on where they live.

According to the law, illegal aliens are entitled to Social Security if they have paid into the system. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21732.pdf

As a technical matter, how does the wiretap apparatus distinguish American packets from foreign packets without reading the American packets?

Actually I discussed just this issue:

You're mistaking capability with intent and action: that if NSA has the "capability" to do something, it must be doing it unless it can be proven otherwise (which is impossible, given the need to keep intelligence sources, methods, techniques, and capabilities secret). By that logic, all NSA's listening posts around the world and on Navy ships that have the capability to intercept traffic of US Persons, and all US intelligence operations which the capability to target US Persons, must be doing so, because they are physically capable of it.

The distinction isn't made in our capabilities. A gun can just as easily kill a friend as an enemy. The distinction about what is acceptable and lawful versus what isn't is made in the law. You choose to believe any level of access NSA has to US networks must be used to spy on Americans, and ignore the fact that the exact same equipment and infrastructure is required to lawfully target individual foreign communications within the United States, not to mention executing USCYBERCOM's mission to defend US military networks from attack.

Claiming that you can listen to foreigners without also listening to Americans is so technically implausible it's ludicrous on its face.

Where did I make that claim? In fact, not only did I not make this claim, I have a number of times indicated that a hypothetical capability which can target communications of non-US Persons traveling to, from, or within US networks and systems REQUIRES exactly what General Hayden spoke of:

Gone were the days when signals of interest -- that's what NSA calls the things they want to copy -- gone were the days when signals of interest went along some dedicated microwave link between strategic rocket forces headquarters in Moscow and some ICBM in western Siberia. By the late '90s, what NSA calls targeted communications -- things like al Qaeda communications -- coexisted out there in a great global web with your phone calls and my e-mails. NSA needed the power to pick out the one, and the discipline to leave the others alone.

I'm not arguing it's not possible to abuse it, because I'm not an idiot. What I'm arguing, essentially, is that EVERY government capability or power can be abused. Every. Single. One. So the end result of what you're saying is that NSA should not even have the capability to look at foreign traffic (which is and always has been fair game without a warrant*) within the US, because that capability could be abused. I would say that is an approach that puts the United States at a disadvantage to our adversaries that is almost difficult to imagine.

And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.

That you can even claim this with a straight face is proof that you are completely disingenouous. We have the most powerful, and most secretive government the United States has ever had. And there is ZERO political momentum in the other direction.

I didn't say that...that's part of General Hayden's remarks. But I do agree with it, so:

Are you actually being serious? I mean, really?

We know far more, in far more detail, and far more quickly, about the activities of government than at any other time in our nation's history, and in the history of humanity, and that trend is not reversing. Since I know you're a thoughtful and intelligent person, I am literally stunned and flabbergasted that you cannot see this.

* Before the stopgap Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), the IC assumed anyone within the US was a US Person, even if they weren't, and assumed anyone outside the US was fair game

It's fine to take issue with it, but that's how it's always been — this isn't a new construct in foreign intelligence. For as long as the US Intelligence Community has existed, foreign targets have NEVER required a warrant, because foreign targets are not seen by the law or the courts to have Fourth Amendment protections under the Constitution.

I repeat: this is not new and this is not "post-9/11". Make no mistake, foreign targets are still TARGETED. The US doesn't just eavesdrop on foreign targets for the hell of it — a target is picked after analysis of intelligence, which may identify more targets, which feed into the next "loop" of the intelligence process. It's not some kind of dragnet.

However, to pick out communications from anywhere in real time, which is the ideal state that even NSA admits it is trying to reach, you must necessarily have the ability to, well, pick out communications from anywhere in real time. To quote former DIRNSA Michael Hayden: "NSA needed the power to pick out the one, and the discipline to leave the others alone."

Furthermore, it's not a double standard — if the Constitution applied, in a practical sense, to everyone on the globe, what is the purpose for national borders? Why should a US court decide whether the Intelligence Community can target a Chinese military communications hub, or an al Qaeda satellite phone? Moreover, even if a warrant WAS required, the capability and infrastructure to capture the communications must still exist!

Every single capability that government or law enforcement has, or has ever had, can be abused. History tells us as much. Every single one of them can be turned against innocents. Every. Single. One. What stops that? Oversight and the law. We do not have direct oversight of intelligence, only institutional oversight by proxy. But that's not new, either. We constantly strive for the right level of government power vs. checks on that power.

Yes, you're 100% correct. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is stricter than previous law. It is expressly prohibited to target, collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the communications content of US Persons without a warrant.

Your mistake is, apparently, believing that it's happening without any sort of proof.

What we have done is shifted the notion of who is or isn't a US Person from the a place to a person.

Before 9/11, we assumed anyone — or any traffic — inside the US was a US Person, and that anyone outside the US was fair game. After 9/11, and with the increasing levels of foreign traffic traveling over the internet instead of walkie-talkies in foreign countries, the IC, and NSA in particular, was in the difficult position of needing to target traffic within the US. A series of secret orders and stopgap legislation (like the temporary Protect America Act) supported this.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 completely changes the pre-9/11 paradigm. Now an individual warrant is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe, while foreign targets — even within the US — explicitly do NOT require a warrant. Foreign targets outside the US have never required a warrant, and shouldn't just because they or their traffic enter the US.

Right now, this very second, government and law enforcement have all sorts of powers they can abuse, and they have since the founding of our nation. At the same time, intelligence operations require secrecy in order to be successful. Sun Tzu said this millennia ago, long before any construct of the US, much less the West, ever existed. Yet, instead of actually becoming informed about the purpose and function of our foreign intelligence activities, people choose to believe that our government is on a singular mission to spy on Americans illegally.

If anyone claims to care about this topic at all:

1. Read my other comment on this story
2. Read former NSA and CIA director General Michael Hayden's 2006 remarks on this topic at the National Press Club (if you do nothing else, just read this)
3. Watch this months-old National Geographic Documentary on NSA
4. Ask yourself if it really makes sense that hundreds, if not thousands, of professional civilian and military members of our government have so little regard for their fellow citizens that they are systematically violating both the letter and spirit of law and the Constitution, not just once or twice or a handful of times, but every single day, with respect to every single American — when NSA's primary purpose and reason for being is FOREIGN signals intelligence — while utterly ignoring the legitimate complexity and challenges of targeting foreign traffic, in real time, on equipment and networks within the United States.

The ridiculousness here is that anyone believes that NSA actually has a "dossier" on all Americans — or even cares about Americans at all, given that its sole purpose for existence is foreign signals intelligence as exponentially increasing amounts of foreign traffic travel through networks, systems, and infrastructure on US soil. All of those foreign linguists must be for illegally spying on Americans!

Basically what you're saying is, you'd prefer to believe, without proof, allegations that the NSA is illegally dragnet-spying on ALL Americans, and has been doing so for more than a decade, which would involve at the very LEAST hundreds, and more likely thousands, of civilian and military NSA employees, all of whom don't mind that they're directly violating the Constitution, but only one guy who hasn't been at NSA in over a decade is telling you "the truth"? That really seems plausible to you?

When the Terrorist Surveillance Program was revealed by the New York Times in 2005, it only touched on numbers of Americans in the hundreds, who had direct communications with individuals tied to terrorism, was authorized by the President under Article II under the AUMF, and was renewed and briefed to Congress every 45 days — and this was four years AFTER Binney claimed NSA was already dragnet-wiretapping ALL Americans.

Never mind that restrictions on US Persons are constantly drilled into civilian and military intelligence professionals every day. Never mind the complex procedures the IC maintains specifically to NOT target or collect on Americans. Never mind that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is stricter than previous law.

What we have done is shifted the notion of who is or isn't a US Person from the a place to a person.

Before 9/11, we assumed anyone — or any traffic — inside the US was a US Person, and that anyone outside the US was fair game. After 9/11, and with the increasing levels of foreign traffic traveling over the internet instead of walkie-talkies in foreign countries, the IC, and NSA in particular, was in the difficult position of needing to target traffic within the US. A series of secret orders and stopgap legislation (like the temporary Protect America Act) supported this.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 completely changes the pre-9/11 paradigm. Now an individual warrant is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe, while foreign targets — even within the US — explicitly do NOT require a warrant. Foreign targets outside the US have never required a warrant, and shouldn't just because they or their traffic enter the US.

For anyone who claims to care about this topic at all, I urge you to read "REMARKS BY GENERAL MICHAEL V. HAYDEN", which is former NSA and CIA directory General Michael Hayden's remarks before the National Press Club in 2006. This was still pre-FISA Amendments Act of 2008, but it gives a (very) clear picture of what the landscape and our challenges was, and still are. Also, if you care at all about what NSA does, this excellent and very recent National Geographic documentary is as close as you're going to get in an unclassified context.

A key excerpt from General Hayden's speech is included below, but again, if you purport to care about this issue at all, I urge you to read the entire speech and the Q&A, and reflect on the fact that it's not possible given the secrecy of intelligence work for NSA to "prove" that it *isn't* doing something. Oversight of the IC comes from the executive (the President), legislative (Intelligence Committees of both houses of Congress and FISA legislation), and judicial (FISC) branches. That's how oversight of the Intelligence Community has always occurred.

The trouble is the mistaken and misguided belief that if there has ever been an example of abuse, or a mistake, then ALL activity MUST be abuse. If you choose to believe that the United S

Efficiency is not an issue is it. No matter what they do, no solar tech will ever get better than 20% efficient. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf

Oh that's easy. There has been an official state of emergency in the US since 1995, continued by Bush, and continued by Obama. The US is in a permanent state of emergency, and any emergency powers must be considered permanent powers.

citation 1
citation 2
citation 3
citation 4
citation 5
citation 6
citation 7
citation 8
citation 9
citation 10
Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....

That is somewhat hard to do. The only proof possible is either a developer stating that is the case, or to take lack of attempts to get the game past the censorship board as proof..

or you could cite a game that is freely available in other countries, yet not Australia?

you know, the United States, where we actually have protected speech and fight for it?

Yes, your speech is very protected. as long as you're in a Free Speech Zone

Australia being the most screwed up country in the English speaking world false on this topic, when they are the only country in it to employ this censorship at all?

i think you'll find virtually every developed country has ratings boards (even the US), every country has laws regarding these. the UK has threatened to ban games based on failed ratings (modified versions were released in the U.K. I'll admit ours are worse than most. that's one area of law.
you have the patriot act & its secret interpretations, other secret laws regarding air travel, laws & regulations you're allowed to see if you pay for the privelege, or even laws removing your right to transit without any trial.

Because of the protests of people around the world against it? Given, this is a case where Australia is not alone (Britain is trying), but they were the first, and their proposed law was still the worst.

i think you'll find the protest around the world(which happened over a year after the australian legislation effectively died) were against SOPA, something proposed in the US. you might want to read up about it before telling me that Australia's proposed filter was worse (hint: Australia's filter would have only blocked access to content, SOPA would have done all sorts of other things, such as remove links from search engines)

you need to deal with the fact most people see some issues in your brand of democracy and would prefer what they have, which is working a damn lot better from where I am standing.

based off something we're in the process of fixing, and something that never passed into law?

We are not at war with another nation-state, thus we are not at war.

Well, bad luck for you. It turns out that the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of 9/11, and the US Supreme Court has previously held that sort of document as legally equivalent to a declaration of war. The US is at war despite the nonconformance of reality with your declaration.

A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceeding
must begin. The purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the
prompt prosecution of criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burden
of having to defend against stale charges after memories may have faded or evidence
is lost.

There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for
certain federal crimes of terrorism, nor, since passage of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248, H.R. 4472, 2006), for certain federal sex
offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes must begin within five years of
the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are
subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the
otherwise applicable period of limitation.

Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions and various
immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five year
standard. Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, the period may be
extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under a number of
circumstances such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves
charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA
evidence.

Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been
completed. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the
plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins
with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme. Other so-called
continuing offenses include various possession crimes and some that impose
continuing obligations to register or report.

Limitation-related constitutional challenges arise most often under the
Constitution’s ex post facto and due process clauses. The federal courts have long
held that a statute of limitations may be enlarged retroactively as long as the
previously applicable period of limitation has not expired. The Supreme Court
recently confirmed that view; the ex post facto proscription precludes legislative
revival of an expired period of limitation. Due process condemns pre-indictment
delays even when permitted by the statute of limitations if the prosecution wrongfully
caused the delay and the accused’s defense suffered actual, substantial harm as a
consequence.

Source: Page 1, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

You need to read the following paragraphs of the publication

9.5. Distribution of Domestic Imagery. Distribution of domestic imagery to parties other than those identified in the approved PUM, DIR or MFR is prohibited, unless the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it IAW paragraph 11.4. Unless otherwise approved, domestic imagery must be withheld from all general access database systems (e.g., Intelink).
9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.
9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.
9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.
11.4. Dissemination. US person information in the possession of an Air Force intelligence component may be disseminated pursuant to law, a court order, or IAW the following criteria:
11.4.2. The recipient is reasonably believed to have a need to receive such information for the performance of a lawful governmental function and is:
11.4.2.2. A law enforcement entity of federal, state or local government, and the information may indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws that the recipient is responsible to enforce.

As long as the survailance is not targeted at an individual or their property the footage can be passed on to law enforcement.

Yes that is part of the first amendment but the Supreme Court of the US has interpreted it and made several rulings that have placed limits on freedom of speech. Those rulings are called Common Law. You may want to look up the difference between protected and unprotected speech. One category of unprotected speech is that which “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Organizing an unlawful protest, they had no permit, falls into that category. Take a look at this document.

We still do have enough nukes to wipe out all life on the planet fairly effectively.

Citation needed.

What a shitty job of Karma Whoring!

If you were a real whore - good enough to be a part of the Guild, you would have posted this

But no. You posted "citation needed" (said in a condescending nasally voice).

Geek card revoked. You don't belong here. AND a REAL geek would have even more cites than what I posted as an example, btw.

Loser.

You must have missed the /. post about China's growing submarine fleet, like this one, or the news of their nuclear submarine programs on the Guardian and others, like this one. Or the news that they launched a new class of nuclear ballistic missile subs here, here, here, here, and here.

So, there is no threat to the East Coast, because China is so good about not selling things for profit to other nations, like Iran, Syria, Libya....

There are hundreds of thousands of dead victims of world war two that would care to disagree with you.

I think you are far too modest in your description, and you started to misspell it. They are no longer the USSR, but Russia. As the world's most heavily armed nuclear state, Russia does indeed have a history of adventurism, but it stretches back far longer than 20 years, and they specialize in this sort of activity, and know how to treat their helpers.

how long? before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

You mean like seeking regional hegemony, running terrorist campaigns worldwide, threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, threaten Europe's energy supplies to freeze people, use suicide boats to attack gulf shipping, arm Hezbollah to attack Israel with and ultimate goal of destroying Israel, attack US troops, send suicide bombers to Europe and America, aid America's enemies, threaten attacks on nearby countries and cities with missiles, kill diplomats, subvert nearby countries, unleash the suicide bomb brigades (serious), and the ninjas (you decide), perhaps adding some WMDs to the attacks?

I doubt that many people will buy it.

As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.

The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).

The problem is the FBI expects various communities across the United States to take their word after they already have done all the things everyone is afraid of. Does the FBI ever make a case for why it needs new powers other than because they say so?

Can you explain how these new techniques can protect the nation? And can you guarantee these techniques wont be used on us? Government agencies always induce fear so they can take more power and then years later we find those new powers used against us.

What about those unmanned drones? Now they want to let police use unmanned drones and satellites. Are you okay with that?

Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/interr.pdf

How many countries has NK invaded in the last 100 years?

One (South Korea). There was this minor scuffle called the Korean War back in the fifties. Perhaps you might have heard of it.

How many people have they killed?

Lots.

If anything, they are much more peaceful

You tell that to the people who were kidnapped from Japan to train North Korean spies.

It's a small, poor country, they are not a real threat.

A small, poor country with nuclear weapons, spends over 30% of its GDP on the military, has a history of threats to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire,", not to mention torpedoing South Korean ships and shelling South Korea (only a few miles from Incheon International Airport, mind you) Just the kind of small, poor, safe neighbor you want to have in your backyard.

If need be NK could be crushed in a few days.

If it were that easy, it'd have been done already. Even if all of their missiles fail (leaving them unable to attack Japan), they can still easily decimate Seoul, as it's within artillery range of the North Korean border. NK also happens to have an unholy relationship to China, which is fed up with NK's antics, but is still geopolitically wedded to that nation. China will most likely be forced to intervene against any Western efforts to dislodge the Dear Leader.

Last time I checked launching satellites doesn't goes against any treaty signed by NK

They broke their agreement over nuclear development. That's why no one trusts them.

no nation has the right to tell another sovereign nation it can't research rocketry or launch rockets into the ground.

When that same nation comes begging for food which it can't buy because it spent all of its lunch money on rockets, we sure as hell do have the right to tell them how not to spend their money! And that is true even if the same nation doesn't keep threatening to take military action against the very same people offering aid.

As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.

The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).

2. Optical chaff. Similar to (1). but purely optical. And we already have RBOC launchers..

Because if we're developing offensive laser weapons, GUARANTEED we're working on countermeasures against the day that the Russians or Chinese or whoever deploy their own shipboard offensive lasers. . .