U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 23, 2012 @04:19AM from the innocent-until-eventually-suspected-of-something dept.

arnott writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post: "The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism. The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence community's clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident."

129 of 186 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'm surprised there is a limit by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-23 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm surprised there is even a 5 year limit- figured they would keep that data indefinately. I'm sure they have loopholes to allow them to keep the data on anyone that they think is "interesting".

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by 0123456 · 2012-03-23 04:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
2. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by TheGratefulNet · 2012-03-23 04:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  no one here can prove that data EVER gets destroyed.
  that's all.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-03-23 04:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
  A moving target ... just like extending copyrights so works don't end up in the public domain?
4. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-03-23 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  no one here can prove that data EVER gets destroyed.
  So the US government is going to hire Facebook to handle data storage?
5. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by TWX · 2012-03-23 04:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm sure they have loopholes to allow them to keep the data on anyone that they think is "interesting".
  Yeah, it's called an FBI file...
  That we occasionally get a released FBI file on a long-dead political activist, or on an entertainer, or on a politician, or on a civil rights leader... draw your own conclusions.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
6. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Tharsman · 2012-03-23 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dont be silly. They hire Facebook to GET the data in the first place!
7. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by bigstrat2003 · 2012-03-23 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or, you know. He could do his job, and crack down on the abuses regardless of what political consequences it has for him. I, for one, don't believe in giving our representatives a free pass on not doing their job just because they don't want to hurt their chances of re-election.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
8. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by cpu6502 · 2012-03-23 04:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.
  (And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
9. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by tripleevenfall · 2012-03-23 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  Hope. Change. We are the ones that we've been waiting for. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.
10. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by mr1911 · 2012-03-23 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Or, as the OP eluded to, they just define whatever it is you are doing as a potential terror indicator and then keep your data forever.
  
  Don't worry about being added to the list. You're probably there unless you live a very boring, very sheltered life and speak to no one.
  
  Don't be alarmed. This is all for safety and security. Just not yours.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
11. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
  A moving target ... just like extending copyrights so works don't end up in the public domain?
  Whoa, now it all makes sense...Disney must keep buying Congress so that they will keep extending copyright terms because Mickey Mouse is a TERRORIST!!!
12. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Tr3vin · 2012-03-23 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Go put on a hoodie and walk through a gated community.
13. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by b4dc0d3r · 2012-03-23 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Acknowledging this is election cycle politics doesn't excuse behavior, it explains behavior.
  It's hardly a free pass. Almost everything that happens in politics is due to re-election. The deficit limit shenanigans that resulted in a lower credit rating, and higher borrowing costs, were an election gambit to appease the tea party and fiscal responsibility types. The entire 1980's and more were one big "I'm tougher on crime" pissing match to get votes.
  Understanding how laws are passed is the first step in preventing bad laws being passed. The next step is a true institutional memory where abuses are archived, and included in SuperPAC funded advertisements right before the next election.
  Your actions will not be forgotten, is the message.
  The next step, is to get the people who actually care out to vote.
  After that, we need honest people to get pissed off enough that they run for office just so the establishment doesn't keep reinforcing itself. Without the earlier steps, this guy won't stand a chance.
14. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by jamstar7 · 2012-03-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they have loopholes to allow them to keep the data on anyone that they think is "interesting".
  Yeah, it's called an FBI file...
  
  That we occasionally get a released FBI file on a long-dead political activist, or on an entertainer, or on a politician, or on a civil rights leader... draw your own conclusions.
  Don't get your knickers in a twist. They've had an FBI file on me since the 70's. It was part of my background check for security clearance in the military. AFAIK, they still have it, though I don't know offhand when it was last updated.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
15. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Sponge+Bath · 2012-03-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  The Zombie Bono Data Retention Act.
16. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by zlives · 2012-03-23 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  i am sorry that data was purged after 180 days, there is no reference available to said "Jefferson"
17. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  "antisocial behavior" is probably already on the watch list, but nice try.
18. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Given how long current political elections when aren't we in one?
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
19. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-23 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  You can request your FBI file from them- and if they have one they will send it.
  I'm sure there are some "top-secret" reasons they wouldn't- but supposedly they should.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
20. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  They'll redact everything, then mark in your file that you requested it and are therefore suspect.
21. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by hoggoth · 2012-03-23 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  But if you didn't have an FBI file, does requesting your FBI file cause them to open an FBI file on you?
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
22. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-23 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  Probably. So the trick is to request the file- and then request another file a few months later to see if requesting your file made them create one... if it didn't...
  But perhaps they only keep a file on you if you request it twice- so a few months after the second request- request it a third time...
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
23. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Gr8Apes · 2012-03-23 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting that the argument wasn't made that it was effectively unlimited if it exceeded a normal lifespan, or that such an argument, if made, failed.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
24. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-23 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well that's just a fuck-up then since the guy was obviously a terrorist. Listen to all his hate-speech about the blood of patriots and the benefits of revolution!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
25. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-23 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting that the argument wasn't made that it was effectively unlimited if it exceeded a normal lifespan, or that such an argument, if made, failed.
  That argument wouldn't have flown because the court already agreed that "finite time with infinite potential for future retro-active extensions" was "effectively unlimited" in a much more real sense that merely exceeding the author's life span, but that because it wasn't literally unlimited at any given time it wasn't unconstitutional.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
26. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by nschubach · 2012-03-23 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.getmyfbifile.com/form.php
  If anyone wanted a link. (I'm not affiliated with the site.)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
27. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by the_pace · 2012-03-23 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Remember, USA is still under the state of emergency. Almost everything is legal while in the state of emergency.
  CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
  Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
28. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by jd · 2012-03-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Not completely convinced on the SuperPAC, as that risks introducing spin, but absolutely we need to understand why things happen if we're to modify them and we absolutely need to make sure that things aren't swept under the rug. I recognize people change, but change cannot happen without first acknowledging that there was something to change in the first place.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
29. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-23 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Face Book Information...
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
30. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-03-23 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional.
  Which is correct.
  It is a common misconception that the Supreme Court is all about "justice".
  It's not. It's about "Constitutional". If the Constitution says "Congress may do this", then by God, Congress is allowed to do this.
  If you think Copyright terms being effectively unlimited is a problem, start trying to convince Congress to amend the Constitution. It's not like Congress particularly cares one way or the other how long Copyrights last - all they care about is the campaign contributions they get as a result of the question.
  Demonstrate that they're going to lose a lot more campaign funds by extending Copyright than they'll ever lose by limiting it, and they'll shorten it so fast your head will swim...
  Caveat: the real problem with that is that, frankly, most people really don't give a rat's hind leg about Copyright length. Until it's of interest to a very large fraction of the citizenry, you're wasting your time bitching to Congress about it - so go out and convince the general public it matters....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
31. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Gr8Apes · 2012-03-23 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  That argument wouldn't have flown because the court already agreed that "finite time with infinite potential for future retro-active extensions" was "effectively unlimited" in a much more real sense that merely exceeding the author's life span, but that because it wasn't literally unlimited at any given time it wasn't unconstitutional.
  Interesting. Isn't the majority supposed to be conservative on the court? Last time I checked, that meant they had strict interpretations of the Constitution. This sounds like either blind literalism in clear opposition to the intent of the Constitution or clear leave of all rational thought.
  Either state does not bode well for us "mere" citizens.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
32. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-23 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to grant copyright monopolies for a limited time, and the law that was under review specified a limited time and so was Constitutional. The court was simply unwilling to say that the current specified time was "too long", or otherwise eliminate this effective power Congress had to make copyright indefinite by placing a real limit on the power when such was not supported by the Constitution.
  It was an imminently conservative decision.
  And while I certainly don't like the decision, I can't really say it's irrational.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
33. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by chilvence · 2012-03-23 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Why do racist pricks need so much attention on slashdot? Because they know anywhere else they will get kicked in the face.
34. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by davester666 · 2012-03-23 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  Who knew al-Qaeda had a cell in America that long ago...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
35. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a question- How do you prove that they did get rid of your data after 5 years? Somehow I doubt that security files ever get truly destroyed.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
36. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  You should have seen ESPN tonight- the comment section on an article about the Miami Heat rallying for the kid who got killed turned into a complete race war. It was ugly.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
37. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  For the Prez, about 1 year or so. If you include all Fed elections, maybe 6 months. Once you add in state stuff, might be 3 months. Kind of depressing, actually.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
38. Re:I'm surprised there is a limit by doom · 2012-03-25 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you think Copyright terms being effectively unlimited is a problem, start trying to convince Congress to amend the Constitution.
  
  I have an idea. Why don't we change the constitution so that it really spells out the purpose of copyrights, something like this:
  
  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
  
  Then if Congress passes laws that obviously go against this stated purpose, the supreme court will declare them unconstitutional.
  So there isn't any need to spell out precisely how "limited" the time should be, right? if someone tried to argue otherwise, you could argue then that there's no purpose at all to having the intent spelled out like that.
  Incidentally, Lawrence Lessig has concluded that you can't expect Congress to do their job unless we change their incentive structure.
Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:22 · Score: 3, Funny

I Hope we Change our President this year
1. Re:Hope and Change by mhajicek · 2012-03-23 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You mean for yet another one that's just the same?
2. Re:Hope and Change by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2012-03-23 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  And replace him with an even more draconian one ?
  
  --
  for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
3. Re:Hope and Change by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-03-23 04:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And replace him with what....Romney? Gingrich?! Santorum??!!
  Let's face it. Whomever wins the next presidential election, the citizens will lose.
4. Re:Hope and Change by Xenkar · 2012-03-23 05:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Ron Paul
5. Re:Hope and Change by x0d · 2012-03-23 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  there's your politics http://i.imgur.com/mSTMD.jpg
6. Re:Hope and Change by forkfail · 2012-03-23 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so. The remaining 10-20% falls into the "meh" category.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
7. Re:Hope and Change by jamstar7 · 2012-03-23 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  And replace him with what....Romney? Gingrich?! Santorum??!!
  
  Let's face it. Whomever wins the next presidential election, the citizens will lose.
  That's been the problem for the last several election cycles. I haven't seen a real candidate since, well, hell, I don't think I've ever seen a real candidate, and I'm pushing 60!
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
8. Re:Hope and Change by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  While I agree he has his wacky side (a rather large one at that) it seems he would be much more constitutionally minded than any of the others running. The president's power is in the ability to sign or veto legislation, as commander and chief of the armed services, and who he appoints as judges. If Congressman Paul were elected as president what would be the worst that would happen. We probably wouldn't be starting any wars unless we were attacked. We would stand a better chance of bring all of our troops home. The federal government might shut down like it did in the 90s because congress can't get its shit together and produce a balanced budget because I highly doubt a President Paul would sign one that wasn't balanced. The biggest issue might be anyone who he would appoint to the US Supreme Court, and even there I think I would be willing to pick people who would support individual freedoms and liberties. Problem he comes with a lot of baggage as a large number of established Republicans would rather he didn't run as a R because they are rather embarrassed by his libertarian and dovish sides and the rest of the population is well aware of his more wacky beliefs (note there is probably a fair amount of overlap between these 2 groups). This is why he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the republican nomination let alone winning the presidency.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
9. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your own fault if you keep voting for/limiting yourself to only two, and usually lousy, choices! Expand your options is all I can say...
10. Re:Hope and Change by nickersonm · 2012-03-23 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it better to attempt to radically change something, even if it upsets the system, instead of hoping that more of the same will be an improvement?
11. Re:Hope and Change by CanHasDIY · 2012-03-23 07:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so.
  50% bat-shit crazy beats 100% crook any day in my book.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
12. Re:Hope and Change by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-23 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, that's the problem with supporting him.
  The problem with electing him is that regardless of whether he's on the mark or bat-shit crazy he will stick to his principles and not compromise.
  This is why he will never be elected president, and shouldn't be elected president. Being the President of a country is about politics. Politics requires compromising in the face of reality. I've already had enough of a leader who sticks to their ideology against reality.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
13. Re:Hope and Change by CanHasDIY · 2012-03-23 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
  ...
  
  I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
  
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  
  ... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
  
  From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
  
  "In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
  So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
  
  My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
14. Re:Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm voting for RP no matter what. Don't let those assholes convince you it's a "wasted vote".
  If you have any ethics or principles what-so-ever, a "wasted vote" would be voting for a scumbag lair who shits on the Constitution and their oath to uphold it. (Obama, Bush, etc).
  So no matter who you support, don't let anyone convince you that your vote is a "waste". IT'S NOT.
15. Re:Hope and Change by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-23 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  After reading Ron Paul's book 'Liberty Defined', the very name of which is nothing but spin, I am more convinced than ever that he is just one more right wing politician who has found a way to more or less disassociate himself from the rest of the right wing politicians by marketing his 'small government' line of bullshit.
  He will shrink government by killing democratic programs, nothing more, nothing less.
  To those of you haven't read his publications, I suggest you do so - and please try and read a bit beyond the smooth bullshit and see what he's really saying.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
16. Re:Hope and Change by xycadium · 2012-03-24 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I LOVE how no one had a rebuttle to your words. Awesome!
Good. by cpu6502 · 2012-03-23 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
/end sarcasm

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Good. by interkin3tic · 2012-03-23 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
  When did he say that? I would in no way be surprised if he did say that, but a google search didn't return anything.
2. Re:Good. by cpu6502 · 2012-03-23 04:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  an early 2007 debate. He was telling Congressman Paul that he should be quiet (Paul is pro-defense but against preemptive wars of aggression).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:Good. by operagost · 2012-03-23 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Santorum is President? I must have missed something.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
4. Re:Good. by Hoi+Polloi · 2012-03-23 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Older folks in Russia always like to say how they felt safer in the old Soviet Union. They didn't get the opinion of the people who went to the gulags though.
  
  --
  It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
5. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ate you intentionally being dense or just stupid?
6. Re:Good. by dkleinsc · 2012-03-23 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it.
  That's a great idea, and I know just where to start! There's a guy who organized the illegal killing of several Americans in Yemen with a large explosion. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. He has many of accomplices working elsewhere in Washington as well as nearby Arlington, VA.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You did. You missed the part where nobody said anything about Santorum being president.
8. Re:Good. by sconeu · 2012-03-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  My former sig seems appropriate here:
  
  Only through obedience and faith can we preserve our way of life against authoritarian fanaticism"
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
9. Re:Good. by jamstar7 · 2012-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it.
  That's a great idea, and I know just where to start! There's a guy who organized the illegal killing of several Americans in Yemen with a large explosion. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. He has many of accomplices working elsewhere in Washington as well as nearby Arlington, VA.
  Don't forget their running buddies over in Langley. And don't forget that the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is just as guilty. Grab him and his running buddies too.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
10. Re:Good. by Threni · 2012-03-23 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  "(Paul is pro-defense but against preemptive wars of aggression)."
  "but"?
11. Re:Good. by dkleinsc · 2012-03-23 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, sure, I'm just figuring you start with the guy we know was involved in this particular plot (he bragged about it in public) and know exactly where he is (our security agencies make a big effort to track his every movement quite closely). Once you've picked up him, the next step is clearly to waterboard him until he tells us all about his accomplices.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
12. Re:Good. by CanHasDIY · 2012-03-23 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Closest thing I could find was a thread on freerepublic in which a poster makes references to Rush Limbaugh making similar comments during a Katie Couric interview:
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
13. Re:Good. by boarder8925 · 2012-03-23 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  God damn I wish I had mod points.
  
  --
  Keep your eyes to the sky.
14. Re:Good. by interkin3tic · 2012-03-23 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  My question too. Being in favor of a strong national defense logically means not wanting to exhaust it on pointless invasions on countries that haven't done anything to justify being invaded.
And I Promise You... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:25 · Score: 1

None of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who everyone ignores anyway) will choose this particular subject to thrash Obama on.
Look at what happened in Toulouse by Jack+Malmostoso · 2012-03-23 04:25 · Score: 2

I really fail to understand how this data is used and if anyone actually checks it or if it is kept in order to incriminate you later. See what happened in Toulouse last week: a man who went in and out Afghanistan and Pakistan, was known to the police, went in and out of jail a couple of times, was known to frequent an extremist group, still managed to kill children in a school and keep the police busy for two days under siege.
Shouldn't he have been stopped before?
I don't understand, really.
1. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by cpu6502 · 2012-03-23 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Stopped for doing what? Traveling? Is that now illegal too? (Oh yes of course it is; you can't fly domestically without the SA's permission.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
2. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by Niedi · 2012-03-23 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  still managed to kill children in a school
  Just a couple of days after he went out to kill a soldier.
  Twice.
3. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA claims to have some super-secret data-mining operation going on... but a lot of people are doubtful about how effective such a thing could be.
4. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-03-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA claims to have some super-secret data-mining operation going on... but a lot of people are doubtful about how effective such a thing could be.
  Don't worry, the NSA knows who these doubters are and they will use it against them at sometime in the future.
5. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by interkin3tic · 2012-03-23 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.
  
  It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"
6. Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse by misexistentialist · 2012-03-23 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Criminalizing thought or more thoroughly investigating suspicious people will cost many billions of dollars. The deaths of a few children are just not that important in terms of money, let alone in terms of liberty.
More proof... by MitchDev · 2012-03-23 04:31 · Score: 2

...that the biggest Terrorist organization and biggest threat to American's rights is the US government...
1. Re:More proof... by whoever57 · 2012-03-23 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, the US isn't just killing Americans -- . The CIA killed 5 ordinary french people by spiking the bread with LSD.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:More proof... by dryeo · 2012-03-23 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not just Americans. All my life I've felt the biggest immediate threat to my freedoms has been the American government and things have just gotten worse in the 40 years I've been paying attention.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Pick a name... by mhajicek · 2012-03-23 04:32 · Score: 2

Would Misuer prefer to be hanged with a red rope, or a blue rope?
Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:33 · Score: 1

I admit, I used to think any data retention, let alone as long as for 180 days was bad.
But about 3 years ago, I realized that this line of thinking was wrong, perhaps even racist. Now keeping data on everyone for 5 years is good.
My attitude on war has undergone the same growth.
Thank god for Obama! by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-03-23 04:36 · Score: 4, Funny

If it were Bush it would be 10 years!

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
1. Re:Thank god for Obama! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Only because Bush uses both hands to count.
2. Re:Thank god for Obama! by RussR42 · 2012-03-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  You fool! This was somehow the Bush administration's fault. At least it will be by next week.
3. Re:Thank god for Obama! by zlives · 2012-03-23 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  well at lest Guantanamo is closed, o wait
4. Re:Thank god for Obama! by forkfail · 2012-03-23 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  So - eight minutes of fear, hate and war mongering have no bearing on what's happening now?
  Absolutely Obama hasn't done enough to change things. No doubt about that.
  But with that said, Bush and Friends not only set the wheels in motion, but they did everything to ensure that the switches on the tracks were broken and locked into place and that the brake mechanisms were removed.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
5. Re:Thank god for Obama! by RussR42 · 2012-03-23 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Good job getting the ball rolling there! Forget next week, we'll have this done before lunch!
What terrorism? by Hentes · 2012-03-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Didn't terrorism end after they killed Bin Laden?
1. Re:What terrorism? by JeanCroix · 2012-03-23 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  We have always been at war with terrorism. And drugs. And poverty.
Double plus good! by isotope23 · 2012-03-23 04:38 · Score: 1

"Oh say does that start spangled banner yet wave....
o'er the land of the free, or the home of the slave?"

--
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
How Bizarre. by fullback · 2012-03-23 04:43 · Score: 1

What a strange country the U.S. is turning into. It's as if the old Soviet Union and eastern bloc transposed with the west in some bad science fiction movie. The old East German secret police, the Stasi, must be green with envy.
Americans seem perfectly happy with it all. That's fine, though. Americans should do as they wish in their own country. It's their business and theirs alone.
I just wish the U.S. showed other countries the same consideration and let people in other countries do as they wish.
1. Re:How Bizarre. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Despite the ravings on /. most Americans don't seem to give a crap about the slow ceaseless erosion of their rights because they do believe that it is for their own good/safety. A large swath of the country has believes that we need to spread the "American Way of Life" to the rest of the world and bring democracy the "Random Third World Shit Holes" using our valiant armed services, or words to that effect. There are some of us who try to get our elected officials to not do these things but it doesn't seem like many and you must be a glutton for punishment because you rarely if ever hear back and often when you do it is some patronizing form letter.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
2. Re:How Bizarre. by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-03-23 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I love those patronizing letters.
  Me to Senator: "I disagree with X because it hurts Y and Z."
  Response: "I agree that X is a necessary and prudent development to prevent Y and Z from occurring. Thank you for your support."
3. Re:How Bizarre. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-24 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  I actually like it when they are out glad handing in the run-up to the election and go door to door and you get to actually confront them about it. This is much more likely with more local or state politicians but it does happen with some of the ones who are going the US house or senate. They really don't like to be confronted by an informed voter, especially one who is involved in the process. I love seeing them squirm.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
foreigners by anonieuweling · 2012-03-23 04:51 · Score: 2

That info is about USA citizens.
So the situation for foreigners must be much worse...
1. Re:foreigners by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-03-23 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. Basically US agencies have the cart blanche for spying on any non-US citizens in any way they like. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have built a giant database with all information about any non-US person they can gather just because they can.
2. Re:foreigners by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-23 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be curious about how long they store those fingerprints they collect at border crossings, actually (God, what a hassle!). Also, what they do to them if the person crossed becomes a citizen later on.
3. Re:foreigners by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  They're digitized and stored forever. You think they toss fingerprints?
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I hate stories like this because.. by cyberchondriac · 2012-03-23 04:53 · Score: 1

aside from the obvious reasons, my end users will read it and expect me to be able to archive 5 years of their data and email. We just don't have the storage capacity or funds to buy more for that kind of archival, the state is in a world of financial hurt. Must be nice to be the Fed.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
1. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by benjamindees · 2012-03-23 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You sound like a Windows admin...
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
2. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by cyberchondriac · 2012-03-23 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Um..not particularly; I admin Linux and NetWare mostly. Why?
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
3. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by benjamindees · 2012-03-23 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Hard drives are cheap... desktops all have them and they're usually under-utilized... etc...
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
4. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, everything is always cheap when you are not the one buying it. Go hook up cyber with a few dozen TBs for him.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
5. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by cyberchondriac · 2012-03-24 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any idea how much storage it would take just to keep 4,000 user's emails from every single day for 5 whole years, not to mention their data? Not just the latest data, not deduplication, but a copy of every file ,and more importantly, every email for every user, every day, for 5 years... we're not talking about a trip down to Best Buy. Heck, I'm not even talking hard drives, but tape and related silos. It won't happen on our budget, even with incremental backups and Grandfather/Father/Son schemes. We're still stuck on LTO-3. Now, maybe if I could convince them to upgrade everything to LTO-5, but that too would be expensive with our restricted budget right now.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
6. Re:I hate stories like this because.. by cyberchondriac · 2012-03-24 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry Benjamin, I really should have replied to the AC here. Too late to change it now.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Pick a name... by geckipede · 2012-03-23 04:55 · Score: 1

Was that an attempt to spell "monsieur" ?
Cost by currently_awake · 2012-03-23 04:55 · Score: 1

Hosting all that data costs money. From a law enforcement point of view it's probably worthless after 5 years anyway.
1. Re:Cost by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-03-23 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Data that can be used against someone politically never becomes worthless while that person is alive and not in prison yet.
  "$X years ago you were involved with $political_movement therefor you are an America hating democracy killing $name_of_currently_disliked_group."
2. Re:Cost by BlueStrat · 2012-03-23 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  Hosting all that data costs money. From a law enforcement point of view it's probably worthless after 5 years anyway.
  But you're missing the point. Politically and citizen-control-wise, it can be worth far, far more than gold. Absolutely worth it, to them, to spend our money (not theirs) on it. Just another tax and tick on the debt clock that will never cost *them* a dime.
  They have to take our money to retain the data, so that when we get angry because they take our money to retain the data, they can use the data they retained to protect themselves from the citizens who are angry that they're retaining the data.
  It's turtles all the way down.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
3. Re:Cost by bryan1945 · 2012-03-23 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Who says you have to continually host it? Pull out the archive drives and store them. Still costs some money, but how many TBs could you stuff into a moderately sized broom closet? Besides, knowledge is power, and when you know more about them than they know about you...
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Don't Worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:56 · Score: 1

They stored the data on MegaUpload!
Re:Damn that evil Dick Cheney! by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-23 04:57 · Score: 1

Hey! Not all evil dicks are as bad as Cheney....

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
We need Mulder and Scully by rjejr · 2012-03-23 05:04 · Score: 2

Thanks to the US govt people can stop worrying about the trilateral commission and smoking old men in dark back rooms. Who needs conspiracy theories are theorists when the govt. can do anything it wants right out in the open. We're all criminals and pirates. Well except for white collar criminals, their just good capitalists.
and if you wonder why by nimbius · 2012-03-23 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

the united states government is pursuing terrorists so voraciously, it is not because they have your safety as a primary concern. Natural disasters are easily shrugged off, for example little effort was put into katrina and many lives lost due to government neglegence but no real repercussions arose from the incident, just a smooth shuffling of deck chairs so to speak.

the occupy protests, while they included violent police crackdowns on citizens and journalists alike, also received no real repercussions that couldnt be easily dismissed by the government as the rantings of kids and slackers with "no clear message" and "subversive" tendencies.

terrorism on the other hand brings results. it undermines a government in ways that are unchallengeable as it is an amorphous concept. theres no real enemy, despite how badly america wanted it to be osama, or sadam, or al-awlaki. Terrorism is an ideology, and every troop from the legions of rome to the english military officer who stood guard against the irish menace during the troubles understands that no weapon will ever purge it from the earth. terrorism is determination with absolutely nothing to lose; the last resort of a broken people.

you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:and if you wonder why by Jawnn · 2012-03-23 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Insightful
  Now, cue the retards who will try to skewer you for being "soft" on terrorists. Never mind the fact that more people die in auto accidents every few weeks than died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001. A healthy perspective is not something that fearful people usually have. That's why it is doubly shameful for our leaders to still fanning the flames of that fear, rather than helping us to collectively regain our perspective.
2. Re:and if you wonder why by steelfood · 2012-03-23 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.
  You make two assumptions here that history has proven to more or less be invalid:
  1) The government is actually, genuinely interested in stopping terrorism.
  2) Stopping terrorism is more important than say, making money.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:bogus rationale by benjamindees · 2012-03-23 05:32 · Score: 1

That's code for "fuck you, citizens, we'll do whatever we want."
The underwear bombing was basically a verified government false flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7_L1bVBLo

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Gosh by Anomalyst · 2012-03-23 05:43 · Score: 1

I feel SO much safer now, this is the change he was hoping to provide.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Buy stock in hard drive manufacturers by losttoy · 2012-03-23 06:05 · Score: 1

One wonders if hard drive manufacturers had some influence on this decision :P
Why throw it away at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 06:20 · Score: 1

Even though someone may not be a terrorist now, that is no reason to assume he won't become one later. Terrorists may be plotting attacks even when they are still flying below the radar. That information can be very valuable when they are later found to be travelling to terrorist training camps. Although privacy is important, preventing even a single attack like 9/11 or the French terrorist would make it worthwhile to keep the data longer. Those who have nothing to hide shouldn't have anything to fear from that.
I don't get it. by daveschroeder · 2012-03-23 06:24 · Score: 1

From the joint DNI/DOJ statement:
"The updated Guidelines do not provide any new authorities for the U.S. Government to collect information, nor do they authorize acquisition of data from entities outside the federal government. All information that would be accessed by NCTC under the Guidelines is already in the lawful custody and control of other federal agencies. The Guidelines merely provide the NCTC with a more effective means of accessing and analyzing datasets in the government’s possession that are likely to contain significant terrorism information. They permit NCTC to consolidate disparate federal datasets that contain information of value to NCTC’s critical counterterrorism mission. Furthermore, the updated Guidelines do not supersede or replace any legal restrictions on information sharing (existing by statute, Executive Order, regulation, or international agreement). Thus, the updated Guidelines do not give NCTC authority to require another agency to share any dataset where such sharing would contravene U.S. law or an international agreement.
One of the issues identified by Congress and the Intelligence Community after the 2009 Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day 2009 bombing attempt was the government’s limited ability to query multiple federal datasets and to correlate information from many sources that might relate to a potential attack. A review of government actions taken before these attacks recommended that the Intelligence Community push for the completion of state-of-the-art search and correlation capabilities, including techniques that would provide a single point of entry to various government databases."
So who here complained that we couldn't connect the dots with Abdulmutallab, given that we already had an severe adverse report on him, but that report didn't get fused or connected to anything else? Now the government tries to link databases containing information it lawfully has without any new authority, and it's automatically evil?
Sorry, I don't get the connection.
Actual Santorum Quote by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-03-23 06:40 · Score: 1

You misquoted Santorum, he actually said: "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith"

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
This is the kind of stuff... by bradley13 · 2012-03-23 07:32 · Score: 1

The US is currently pressuring various European countries to open their police databases to automated queries by US authorities. This kind of stuff is the reason that the smarter European countries are refusing. The US has no concept of privacy laws - once data is released to one agency, you can pretty much assume that they will share it willy nilly with other agencies. The data retention laws are incredibly lax. In the end, you have zero assurance what happens to personal data, once the government has it.
Privacy laws basically do not exist in the US. The European countries (like Germany) that have agreed to data-sharing are almost certainly violating EU law.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Re:1984 Was Not An Instructable by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-03-23 07:47 · Score: 1

Wanted: More sarcastic Amazon reviews of 1984...
Not surprising by endus · 2012-03-23 07:53 · Score: 1

They need legislation to somehow make this legal.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 ...and the other posters are right...in 5 years they'll make it 10. In 10 years, 15. In 15 years they'll just stop pretending and enslave us all.
These systems never delete data by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 20:09 · Score: 1

I'd like to hear from anyone that has ever seen one of these system that has been designed to actually delete the data. You can be sure that the best it will ever do is simply restrict the date range search for some class of users. Think about it, imagine how scary it is for a software developer to actually delete records. If the company implementing this fucks up and loose data they would have big problems on their hands. You can be sure that no system will ever delete that data.