Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Seeks A Loophole In The Privacy Act
CygnusXII writes "As reported over @ wired.com. It seems that Homeland Security isn't the only govermental body wanting to keep a database on the good old U.S. population. 'The bill would allow Pentagon intelligence agents to work undercover and question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents. That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases and to the CIA, which is prohibited from operating in the United States.' Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?"
"...to question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents"
So some asshole comes up to you and starts questioning you about Al-Qaeda, but doesn't say he's FBI. Either its blindingly obvious that he is, or you tell him to fuck off.
I can see it now:
"As you can see, Mr. Anderson, we've had our eye on your for some time now. Ignore the shades, and the earpieces, and the official-looking, unnaturally clean sedan we're driving, we're NOT government agents. We need your help to find a certain "individual". You want to waste your day talking to us, since of course we cannot compel you to, since we're not government agents, don't you, Mr. Anderson? Since we're not government agents, you're more likely to tell us what you know, since we're just regular guys who happen to have cornered you, dragged you into our car, and want to chit-chat about Al-Qaeda. m-kay?"
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
But if that doesn't scare you, what about the prospect of a United States getting what is effectively yet another intelligence agency in the middle of a war between the existing two?
I dismissed this article, about the author of this book as a little overstretched last week - but the more I look around the more real it seems.
Ok, so now I'm being hattish...
Namely keeping records of their civilians.
Stasi (former Eastern Germany) / Gestapo (former 3rd Reich)
Of course all in the name of security.
Privacy is terrorism.
Which sub-branch of the executive body a particular government organization is under is really only an artifact of what sounded like a good fit at the time it was created.
I'd guess the problem here is that someone feels that the FBI is too full of bureaucracy and politics to do an effective job.
Raise your hand if you don't think the biggest problem with our government is the massive inert body of career bureaucrats. But you'd better be prepared with an answer in case you're called on.
And to all you free thinkers out there, that's not the problem, and if it were, there's already a solution
I don't think this is all invasive as people are making this to be. We're not turning the 1st Marine Division into cops here. We're talking about intelligence officers being tasked with gathering information in the US. I think in the fight on terrorism, the more the merrier in gathing intel about possible terrorists. Now, I agree to the fact that this is really the FBI's job and that they shold be doing it, but what I think is funny is that people are complaining that the US military is about to be doing this but that they are perfectly fine with the FBI doing it. I don't really see much of a difference.
A terrorist is an enemy soldier. He is fighting a war, not shoplifting. We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue. The FBI is simply a glorified police force and has proven itself to be either completely inadequate or completely incompetent in fighting a war.
Arrest and try criminals according to the applicable penal laws, but capture or kill enemy terrorist according to the applicable customs and laws of war.
How about one day you're hanging out at a bar, and you meet a girl who seems really friendly, you get along, and you start to go out. You happen to be a writer, and one day your typewriter breaks, and guess what? she happens to have a typewriter she can give you! Then you find out a year from now that the typewriter is bugged and records everything you write ...
This is what happened to Philip Agee, CIA defector, in Paris. A long and elaborate ruse involving gaining his trust and a series of 'accidental' occurrences seemingly unrelated. But that was done outside of the US, where warrants aren't necessary and it's basically just espionage.
Do you really want this kind of thing to be able to happen domestically? No constitution, no bill of rights, no need for warrants, no need for transparency--just all out domestic espionage operations.
...and I have plenty to hide.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Actually, you'd be surprised how much you'll say.
I'm surprised its not mentioned yet (that I've seen) on Slashdot, but don't forget that a huge portion of hacking has always been social engineering, which of course includes asking the right questions in the right way.
I was an anthropology student for a while, and one of the most interesting classes was one called 'Doing Feildwork' which basically taught the techniques, problems and pitfalls of doing an ehtnography (think slightly more academic and analytical documentary). One of our main topics involved when and why you should or shouldn't mention that you're an academic, simply because there are many questions that people will answer if you're polite/friendly that they wont answer if they know you're an academic.
Someone else here already posted the story of an American spy in Paris who was tricked by a friendly, attractive girl. Think about the last time an attractive member of the opposite sex talked to you [this may be hard for some slashdotters, I'm sure]: don't you typically keep talking with them as long as they want, unless they become too annoying?
"Stumble before you crawl"
First, I applaud you having the guts to say something that is going to almost certainly get you modded down: slashdot isn't a haven for posts that suggest that privacy isn't the primal need in the world. Its just a need, to some degree or another.
However, the problem you're discussing is massively more complex than you're realizing: true, terrorists think they're fighting a war. However, they are most certainly not. A war is a conflict between nations - political entities that not only make themselves available for communication, but who hold physical territory. Terrorists such as Al-Queda hold no land which is their nation, but rather are hosted by friendly nations such as Saudi Arabia (our partner in peace, of course). As such, terrorists are able to engage in 'military' attacks which cannot be reciprocated (find me a tower full of civilian al-queda, please...). In a war, all attacks are potentially reciprocal (within the limitations of comparative wealth, size, obviously). This reciprocity serves as a form of restraint on the actions of nations, limiting their willingness to commit atrocities*.
Because terrorists by definition need not fear reciprocation, nor [in the case of Islamic extremists] do they fear suicidal missions, they cannot be dealt with by traditional or by-and-large existing military methods. Rather, they must be approached in the same manner as which domestic terrorists [a la the Unabomber] are: a combination of military and police intelligence and effort.
While I don't agree with the need for this ability for the CIA (since the FBI and local law enforcement have can fulfill this function so long as they're properly trained/breifed), I do agree with their reasoning for the nature of the 'war'.
*: Yes, obviously Russia, Italy, Germany and the rest of the Axis committed atrocities [purges of all types], as some would argue we did [Japanese internment, Dresden, Nagasaki]. However, those nations who knew they were atrocities kept them hidden, while those 'atrocities' which are debateable are obviously excempt.
"Stumble before you crawl"
By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII.
Um, I thought the conventions of war only applied after a declaration of war? To the best of my knowledge the USA is currently not in a state of war with any foreign government, although it is conducting several military operations overseas. That's why the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, remember? It cuts both ways.
The Posse Comitatus Act is what currently prevents the military from being used for law enforcement purposes.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
If someone stops me for questioning under the color of law, I immediately ask for ID, even if it's a police officer in uniform in his squad car. I've gotten a lot of hostile responses to that, even though I'm well within my rights. In these days of ID theft, I'm sure as hell not going to hand over my ID to any shmoe that says he's law enforcement.
A friend of mine has an even more interesting time: he has no ID. He doesn't even have an SSN. When it comes down to federal goons breaking down doors, he'll be the toughest one to find.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
... the do so at their peril. Just following orders is no excuse to engage in supporting despotism. The possee comitatus act allows for the military to be used in extreme circumstances inside the united states, so it becomes a matter of interpretation on a case by case basis. You are required to follow orders, but not illegal orders. The commander in chief does not have a blank check in these matters, although current thinking and actions by the military tend to indicate they don't understand this very well,(don't *want to understand it* is more my opinion), and your two examples ARE examples of it being abused, yet the orders got followed. Pity. Bad precedents after bad precedents. Following illegal orders puts you outside your oath, because if the person issuing you the order is doing so illegally, you must not follow it, and any citizen being persecuted by this illegal order has the moral and legal remedy of resisting whatever is being forced upon him. that's in the laws as well as all the other stuff.
Anecdotal but a few years ago my nephew, a career army nco, quit. He refused to re up despite being offered a huge amount of cash to do so. He is not very political,never was as far back as I can remember, but he told me he simply refused to go along with what he knew was coming, martial law,dictatorial military rule, and especially he didn't agree with what they were trying to brainwash him into, which is that the second amendment is only a government granted privelege, not a born with right, and that only regular military, the guard, and selected civilian police have any "right" to keep and bear. He also said it was rare to hear the term "civilian" without it being part of "fingcivilian" to help get that mindset established, part of a demonisation processs, similar to what police are undergoing today. The stories he related to me indicated that that is an on-purpose aspect, an indoctrination they are carrying out for the future. My personal opinion is that it is an accurrate assessment of his,because I haave heard correlating anecdotals based on talking to a number of other individuals I know who were serving. He was instructing at west point at the time, and I tell you, I was shocked. Here's a young man who liked baseball, girls, 4 wheel drives and hunting, and it was his interest in guns and hunting and being exposed to some gunrights information, etc, before he joined that clued him into what was going down. He did NOT want to quit, he had purposely gone in directly out of high school,just like his father way back, my BIL, but he stuck to his principles and did, he wanted nothing to do with todays new "follow any orders no matter what" army.
I think the trends are ominous, and I am not exaggerating when I will state I feel the USA in 2004 has more parallels with mid 30's germany than most people want to admit to right now.
All discussions of privacy seem to evolve into one person saying "I value my privacy more than I value a nanny government.", and another person responding, "If you've done nothing wrong, then you've no need for privacy."
Here, then, is a list of instances where no illegal activity is occurring, but most people would prefer privacy:
1) Bathroom breaks
2) When the van's a rockin'
3) Nose picking
4) Writing in a journal
5) Meditation
6) Migraine headaches
7) Donating sperm
8) Getting a "Nosy Feds Suck" tattoo
As you can see, just because something is not illegal does not mean it should be public knowledge (although voyeur pr0n freaks may disagree.)
We're at war, and saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
hi,
Why can't we just start keeping tabs on the as many official in the DoD that we can? Keep our own open databases and what-not? Have it open and published on the internet. If it's legal to obtain certain records, then we should obtain them and post them.
A similar event occured in California. The CA DMV did not restrict who was allowed access to its driver license database and did not restrict what could be done with the information. Well, some individuals obtained records on the entire state legislature and published it to the net. They changed the laws after that.
sTc
Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?