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."

27 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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
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 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"
2. 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/
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"
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 zlives · 2012-03-23 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  well at lest Guantanamo is closed, o wait
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!!!"
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.