Slashdot Mirror


NCTC Gets Vast Powers To Spy On U.S. Citizens

interval1066 writes "In a breathtaking new move by (another) little-known national security agency, the personal information of all U.S. citizens will be available for casual perusal. The 'National Counterterrorism Center' (I've never heard of this org) may now 'examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them.' This is different from past bureaucratic practice (never mind due process) in that a government agency not in the list of agencies approved to to certain things without due process may completely bypass due process and store (for up to 5 years) these records, the organization doesn't need a warrant, or have any kind of oversight of any kind. They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. If this doesn't wake you up and chill you to your very bone, not too sure there is anything that will anyway."

332 comments

  1. Unconstitutional by kc67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    With enough media attention this will be shut down.

    1. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Really, I wish it were true, but I doubt it. A lot of people will "agree in the name of national security" that they won't fight it.

    2. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
      Rinse and Repeat

      Works for alot of "stuff" these days.

    3. Re:Unconstitutional by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like how that warrantless wiretapping program was shut down?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Unconstitutional by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Unconstitutional by netwarerip · · Score: 2, Funny

      With enough media attention this will be shut down.

      I would love to mod this funny but am out of points.

    6. Re:Unconstitutional by techsimian · · Score: 2

      The amount of crap that was "shovel ready" post-911 is pretty depressing.
      The amount of screwed up Anti-terrorism/National Security/Good of the People legislation/executive orders that got pushed through during the trample our rights to make us safe period will take decades to clear out.

      I would love to see the secret government shut down, but it's almost 10 years old and there has been plenty of media attention. It takes a lot of effort and time to figure out how to get information on the thing that is secret, to find out what to ask out the secret stuff the secret thing is doing.

    7. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well they did takes steps to stop illegal warrantless wiretapping: they made it legal.

    8. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough media attention this will be shut down.

      You VASTLY underestimate the give-a-shit factor of the average sack of human flesh.

      And Unconstitutional would imply that there's anything left in the way of Rights to even argue what is or what isn't anymore. (I'll give you a hint as to the state of your Rights. Bend over. No, farther, much farther.)

    9. Re:Unconstitutional by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Very wise perspective, AC, very wise indeed.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Unconstitutional by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      well, if we've heard about it, its already entrenched and too late to remove it or fix it.

      btw, its not what we hear about, that I would worry about. its the real shit that won't ever be reported or leaked. as usual, the stuff that gets leaked is not the real stuff to be worried about. as bad as this is, its probably much, much worse than we think it is.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, so that make me think that poster is just another troll. other information I've seen about this indicates only that "Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime."

      unless there is a better source - one that isn't paywalled - this isn't news, just propaganda.

    12. Re:Unconstitutional by Holladon · · Score: 1

      I would love to tell you how little I care about how you would like to have modded something.

      So little that you took the time to write two whole sentences about it!

    13. Re:Unconstitutional by Anarchy24 · · Score: 2

      A) Media attention will do nothing to stop this. Never has. There is nothing new about the government granting itself more authority, and it -never- gives it up.

      B) I would create a new mod category and call it 'Wrong', and your post would be the first one to get it ^_^

    14. Re:Unconstitutional by chill · · Score: 2

      Considering the article is behind a paywall, your pithy attempt at humor is more insightful that I'll bet you intended.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inb4 mods.

    16. Re:Unconstitutional by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      A lot of people will "agree in the name of national security" that they won't fight it.

      Who cares about "a lot of people", the Constitution certainly does not turn on popular opinion

      There will be _someone_ to fight it -- most likely ACLU. Now all we need is for courts (particularly the supreme court) to start doing their job properly.

    17. Re:Unconstitutional by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Jack Bauer will never let CTU... err... NCTC get shut down!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    18. Re:Unconstitutional by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      It won't get shut down. Terrorist is the new Communist.

      Or is it Terrorist is the new Internet Sex Predator, which was the new Satanist, which was the new Gay, which was the new Communist, which was the new Nazi, which was the new Salem Witch?

      I'm sure I'm missing a few steps in between, but the fact remains: America loves finding witches.

    19. Re:Unconstitutional by davydagger · · Score: 2

      score +5 funny, indeed.

      if anything the "security theatre" is populat with voters, and the ideas of freedom and liberty less so these days.

      Airport security, obnoxious and mostly for show, gets high marks, for looking important and making people FEEL safe by giving the illusion of security.

    20. Re:Unconstitutional by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      What makes you think it will "clear out"?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    21. Re:Unconstitutional by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      Given the state of affairs in Washington, I'd argue that popular opinion does in fact drive what's considered constitutional. It could be argued that a large portion of what the federal government does is unconsititutional, but nobody elected or appointed seems to care.

    22. Re:Unconstitutional by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Maybe Cindy Sheehan could rebury her son in front of the White House when she's not running for Vice President.

    23. Re:Unconstitutional by sympletun_1997 · · Score: 2

      The "they" you're talking about - Congress and the President - don't have the Constitutional power to make it legal. It's illegal by virtue of the provisions of a Constitutional Amendment, meaning only another amendment can change that. The "they" in question just put on a good show for the rabble while continuing to serve their masters, rather than protect and defend the Constitution as they swore to do.

    24. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we taking bets yet that they have a Back-door in MS Software?.

    25. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough media attention this will be shut down.

      I would love to mod this funny but am out of points.

      I would love it if people didn't talk about how they would love to mod things. It just adds noise to the forum.

    26. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to tell you how little I care about how you would like to have modded something.

      So little that you took the time to write two whole sentences about it!

      Whatever about the modding question, but I've always found the argument above a weak one. It goes like this:

      A: X
      B: I don't care about X.
      C: See! You do care, because you took the time to say you didn't care.

      I'm pretty sure what B actually means to say is that the whole topic raised by A is time-wasting. So he doesn't care about issue X, but he does care about issue Y, which is time-wasting, and which he raised himself. Then along comes C, who confuses himself by conflating X and Y and then sees that as a rebuttal of B. Weird.

    27. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't doing something wrong, you have nothing to worry about

    28. Re:Unconstitutional by techsimian · · Score: 1

      Nothing really...naive hope?

    29. Re:Unconstitutional by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the secret government shut down, but it's almost 10 years old and there has been plenty of media attention.

      10 years? What are you talking about? Look, the 'secret' government is the old lady at the DMV who makes you wait three hours in line, only to tell you that you are supposed to be in the red line. The 'secret' government is the damn banker who keeps you waiting three hours so you can beg him to let you open an account. The 'secret' government is the accountant who wants all your forms filled out with a black pen, in triplicate. 10 years? You're off by a factor of 1000.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "they" you're talking about - Congress and the President - don't have the Constitutional power to make it legal. It's illegal by virtue of the provisions of a Constitutional Amendment, meaning only another amendment can change that. The "they" in question just put on a good show for the rabble while continuing to serve their masters, rather than protect and defend the Constitution as they swore to do.

      Unfortunately, SCOTUS interprets if a law is Constitutional. They've been largely rubber-stamping this shit.

    31. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough media attention this will be shut down.

      I would love to mod this funny but am out of points.

      I would love it if people didn't talk about how they would love to mod things. It just adds noise to the forum.

      And I hate it when people simply gripe about all the noise on the forum. It simply adds a bunch of noise to the forum.

    32. Re:Unconstitutional by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

      That scare is old news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    33. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you guys stop laughing and being shocked, start thinking and talking of ways to make some people stop their trampling over other people's freedoms and privacy. Secret police orgs and terrorists are both harmful and they must be stopped.

      Remember this: reality is not detective tv-series where all crimes are solvable and right people get punished 100% of the time. We must stop people from doing bad things but we must not invade people's lives. What should we do?

      Other than giving _all_ people, official and civilian, always recording video cameras (mobile phone cams), which send their feed directly to their own servers, I don't
      know how we can accomplish both. Let people invade each other's lives like they already do and when something bad happens, hope they'll send the video clip to authorities or their "black box" personal server opened and examined for evidence.

      Personal "black box" with wireless remote storage for everyone. Officials should be required to carry and keep their own cams running always in duty.

    34. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough media attention this will be shut down.

      I would love to mod this funny but am out of points.

      I would love it if people didn't talk about how they would love to mod things. It just adds noise to the forum.

      And I hate it when people simply gripe about all the noise on the forum. It simply adds a bunch of noise to the forum.

      And I hate it when people merely gripe about people simply griping about people griping about all the noise on the forum. It merely adds an inordinate amount of noise to the forum.

    35. Re:Unconstitutional by curtishinson · · Score: 1

      "So this is how Democracy dies -- to thunderous applause."

    36. Re:Unconstitutional by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the Constitution? The country turns on popular opinion in practice. If the president, SCOTUS, and most voters think something is a-okay, then it will be implemented, regardless of what some piece of paper says.

  2. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?

    Of course, I did not RTFA

    1. Re:Wait, what? by anagama · · Score: 2

      Well, how did it get those records? What are the records? What means is it using to get more records? Think a little.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Wait, what? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, checking out certain library books immediately put you on an FBI list. Now it's much easier - they just grab all your emails and non-https posts as they get routed through servers and toss them in a file on you. All of your secure emails probably get tossed into an NSA supercomputer and cracked and filed as well. I'm sure visiting certain web sites like fertilizer-R.us or terrorism.com puts you on a watch list as well. No, I'm not paranoid, but my government is.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Holladon · · Score: 1

      The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?

      I take it that the issue is less the government accessing info that it has and more the government marking the info for a certain purpose with no oversight or due process guarantees. I imagine the problem isn't access per se but rather the potential for abuse and possible chilling effects. It sounds possibly a bit McCarthyistic.

      Of course, I did not RTFA

      Neither did I, because I don't care to have my money used to help the WSJ churn out neo-conservative drivel. Be nice if there had been a link to a non-paywalled source...

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Well, how did it get those records? What are the records? What means is it using to get more records? Think a little.

      I think this quote from the article sums up the attitude of our friendly government agencies (regarding the need to purge records of the innocent people during the intelligence data gathering):

      But they didn't always know who was innocent. A person might seem innocent today, until new details emerge tomorrow.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I'm not paranoid, but my government is.

      Now that is a bumper sticker I can get behind (er, in front of)!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Wait, what? by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?

      I agree. This sounds like what the government was supposed to be doing to prevent 9/11, as described after 9/11: sharing information between agencies. I thought this was the entire purpose of setting up DHS in the first place.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    7. Re:Wait, what? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Maybe a better questions is why aren't we fighting fire with fire?

      You don't have to be a government to start putting together a database and dossiers.

      See my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314653&cid=42282485

      We're on a site full of nerds and geeks, right?

      Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.

      Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.

      Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.

      They seem like they could really, really use the help.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. Paywalled by Niris · · Score: 2

    Anyone with a WSJ account able to post the article?

    1. Re:Paywalled by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      I mean really. TFS has a link to Wikipedia (OK, now we know what the NCC is and I guess it's not a space ship), then a paywalled article.

      OK, I'm willing to go along with the concept that the US Federal government has gotten even more intrusive however, a little real info would be nice. Very nice. How about taking 30 seconds more and finding a better link.

      I know some feel that the ACLU is a bit on the left wing insane side, but it's a nice balance to the the WSJ right wing insane. And the blog is at least free, readable and nominally interesting.

      tl;dr - we're doomed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Paywalled by danomac · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try this link through google search.

    3. Re:Paywalled by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      OK, I'm willing to go along with the concept that the US Federal government has gotten even more intrusive however, a little real info would be nice.

      I'm not even sure about that much. If the info in the summary is accurate, this agency isn't collecting information on you, merely compiling information that other agencies already collected. I'm frankly a little shocked this isn't already happening. From the summary this sounds like a paranoid tempest in a teakettle, but I can't read the article either.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    4. Re:Paywalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along with Gitmo being closed by Jan 2010, oops upgraded.

    5. Re:Paywalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go through Google. Try this

    6. Re:Paywalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime.

      Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.

      A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.

      More
      A Comparison of the 2008 and 2012 NCTC Guidelines

      The NCTC Controversy -- A Timeline

      Documents
      NCTC Guidelines – 2012

      View Interactive

      .
      NCTC Guidelines -- 2008

      View Interactive

      .
      Homeland Security Department Email about the NCTC Guidelines

      View Interactive

      .
      .
      Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency—how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored—and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.

      The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

      Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

      Enlarge Image

      image
      Closeimage
      Getty Images

      National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill in January.
      .
      The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.

      "It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.

      Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.

      The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.

      Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.

      Three Years of WSJ Privacy Insights
      The Wall Street Journal is conducting a long-running investigation into the profound transformation of personal privacy in America.

    7. Re:Paywalled by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider myself Liberal and Progressive. I did not support the center-right Obama. He is yet another staunchly pro-establishment political operator like so many before him.

      Wake up, folks. We have been living in an authoritarian military oligarchy since World War I, when the finance-military-industrial-congressional complex got started in earnest. The rest is history, and Amazon is filled to the brim with its documentation.

    8. Re:Paywalled by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      If that doesn't work, try the google cache
      https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html

      December 12, 2012, 10:30 p.m. ET
      U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens
      By JULIA ANGWIN

      Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens--even people suspected of no crime.

      Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.

      A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.

      Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency--how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored--and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.

      The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

      Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases--flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

      The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.

      "It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.

      Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.

      The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.

      Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.

      But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or membe

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Paywalled by Holladon · · Score: 1

      I know that you're trolling, but I get sick of this idiotic meme. I don't think there are too many people who voted for Obama both caring about civil liberties issues and being wholly unaware of Obama's awful track record on this count such that this is news that's going to make them think OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE. The liberals who care about civil liberties/surveillance issues and still voted for Obama almost certainly did so out of resigned pragmatism (given that Republicans are the ones who opened the floodgates to an overpowered executive, there's zero reason to think they'd try to close Pandora's Box if one of their guys got back into the White House). Believe it or not, here in the Real Grown-Up World, sometimes there is no good choice -- and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.

    10. Re:Paywalled by Holladon · · Score: 1

      I consider myself Liberal and Progressive. I did not support the center-right Obama. He is yet another staunchly pro-establishment political operator like so many before him.

      Wake up, folks. We have been living in an authoritarian military oligarchy since World War I, when the finance-military-industrial-congressional complex got started in earnest. The rest is history, and Amazon is filled to the brim with its documentation.

      But... but...

      We have iPhones!

    11. Re:Paywalled by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Obama is one of the most successful moderate-Republican presidents in modern history.

      You're right, but for most of the last century it was a more or less functional authoritarian military oligarchy, and most of the people it abused horribly were foreigners in far-away places. The plebes got a share of the Empire (even if they didn't realize that's what it was) and much like it's predecessor on the Italian peninsula, the Empire did some decent things for citizen and subject alike. Now, the system is breaking down, the wheels are spinning in the mud, and things are likely to get nasty both at home and abroad.

    12. Re:Paywalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens--even people suspected of no crime.

      Not everyone was on board.

      Well how kind of them!

      "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting,

      Wow, Dept. of Homeland Security has a privacy officer? Imagine that...

      The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

      5 years is probably enough to find suspicious behavior in anyone's life.

      Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes,"

      Now I feel all warm and fuzzy!

    13. Re:Paywalled by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.

      You do realize that it's because of the loudly-expressed opinions of people like you, that third parties can't seem to gain any traction these days? FYI, In case you weren't aware, at one point in time both the Democrats and GOP were third parties.

      Apparently you never got to the part of school where they taught you how bitching about the status quo while doing everything you can to support it, either consciously or subconsciously, makes you just another douche-bag who's part of the problem.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Paywalled by Holladon · · Score: 1

      Let's yell at each other some more, then. That'll definitely solve the problem. And let's make sure to really drive home the most important point here: the clear moral superiority of people who vote third party. Which I did, by the way. Because VOTING DOESN'T MATTER, which is my entire point.

    15. Re:Paywalled by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Wake up, folks. We have been living in an authoritarian military oligarchy since World War I, when the finance-military-industrial-congressional complex got started in earnest.

      What makes you think it got started in WW I? Read A People's History of the United States because Matt Damon was right - that book will knock you on your ass.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Paywalled by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      OP here; use this link. I posted it in the article but /. saw fit to omit it for whatever reason.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    17. Re:Paywalled by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Because VOTING DOESN'T MATTER, which is my entire point.

      Ah.

      Complaint withdrawn, then.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:Paywalled by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Well reality disagrees with you, and controls the forces that take my money and archive every byte I generate. So now what?

    19. Re:Paywalled by J053 · · Score: 1

      OK (Karma whoring)
      U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens

      By JULIA ANGWIN

      Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizensâ"even people suspected of no crime.

      Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.

      A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.

      Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiencyâ"how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be storedâ"and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.

      The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

      Now, NCTC can copy entire government databasesâ"flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

      The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.

      "It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.

      Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.

      The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.

      Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.

      But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or members of the public. "All you have to do is publish a notice in the Federal Register and you can do whatever you want," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant who advises agencies on how to comply with the Privacy Act.

      As a result, the National Counterterrorism Center program's opponents within the administrationâ"led by Ms. Callahan

    20. Re:Paywalled by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Especially if you already know nothing about history, and are uninclined to learn. People's History is certainly great for stroking those who basically accept the Marxist view of the world, but otherwise is useless. Effectively, it's like Zinn spent the week picking every particle of black sand off the beach and putting it in a jar, then showed you the jar of sand and said, "See: the beach is black."

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    21. Re:Paywalled by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      "Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal"

      How can we distract the rubes so that we can concentrate even more power and steal even more wealth? Hell, we need to make sure that peace does NOT interfere with our lucrative war profiteering!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    22. Re:Paywalled by Holladon · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't understand what you're saying. You think your vote matters? That's almost adorable.

    23. Re:Paywalled by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Read TFA. It's moderately scary. It isn't the end of the world but it gives the government power that they really should not have. It is extraordinarily intrusive.

      Not only can the feds correlate any information gleaned from federal databases, but they can combine it with ANY other database. Cell phone records, mortgage records, Driver's license records, medical records. They can do so without telling anyone else about it. They have NO oversight - which is probably the most upsetting aspect of the affair.

      Panopticon writ large. For the entire population. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:Paywalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is particularly disturbing to me as I have been in meetings where the DMV discussed the new licenses they are issuing here in Florida. Essentially, they are using many forms of identification to prove your identity when you renew (as are several other nearby states) and the pictures are taken much closer than they used to be (can't see your shoulders or anything anymore). The IT group discussed that they were collecting facial biometrics from the photos and building a database that is shared with the NCTC. One FHP representative even mentioned that their goal is to have cameras on their lapel mics that will positively identify you as they stand over you issuing you a citation, etc.

  4. Impressed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I might be if the article wasn't behind a paywall.

  5. NCTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It all comes down to the ISE

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sharing_Environment

    1. Re:NCTC by Microlith · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many actual terrorist incidents they've stopped, and if they're more effective than the magic rock on my desk.

    2. Re:NCTC by elucido · · Score: 2

      Is not an org but a multi-agency center intended to make it easier for various agencies share information and bring their agency's talents to bear in the fight against terrorism.

      This would be fine but why is the threat they claim to be facing outlined as being so broad so as to include "crime" in general? Anything could be a crime or made into a crime. Terrorism is highly specific and a threat to national security so there is a reason for the feds to be involved but "crime fighting" isn't the role of the feds.

      "Once information is acquired, the new guidelines authorize broad new search powers. As long NCTC says its search is aimed at identifying terrorism information, it may conduct queries that involve non-terrorism data points and pattern-based searches and analysis (data mining). The breadth and wrongheadedness of these changes are particularly noteworthy. Not only do they mean that anytime you interact with any government agency you essentially enter a lineup as a potential terrorist, they also rely on a technique, datamining, "
      http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

      I actually disagree with this quote. I support datamining to catch terrorists. So to start off I want to say that.

      "Perhaps most disturbing, once information is gathered (not necessarily connected to terrorism), in many cases it can be shared with “a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign or international entity, or to an individual or entity not part of a government” – literally anyone. That sharing can happen in relation to national security and safety, drug investigations, if it’s evidence of a crime or to evaluate sources or contacts. This boundless sharing is broad enough to encompass disclosures to an employer or landlord about someone who NCTC may think is potentially a criminal, or at the request of local law enforcement for vetting an informant."

      http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

      The problem is here. This is very radical. First they want to share it with an entity not part of the government. Why? What entity which is not part of the government should be involved in this and why? The other problem is the sharing can happen basically for ANYTHING, not just national security investigations but evidence of a crime (there are probably so many crimes that any of us could be a criminal under the local, state and federal government so that applies to anyone). There are reasons behind having this capability but they need to be very precise with information sharing and for the reasons why it's shared.

      Employers should have a right to know if someone is a criminal, so should landlords, but it shouldn't be abused. How can we prevent it from being abused or used for fishing expeditions?

    3. Re:NCTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My bet is on your magic rock, it can at least be parted from its desk. :)

    4. Re:NCTC by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      At least you can throw a rock at a terrorist.

    5. Re:NCTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many actual terrorist incidents they've stopped, and if they're more effective than the magic rock on my desk.

      None of course. They exist in order to gather and share information with other government organizations who are otherwise forbidden by law from gathering that information themselves.

    6. Re:NCTC by Atryn · · Score: 1

      What entity which is not part of the government should be involved in this and why?

      That's been going on for a long time...

      "We need a smaller government" -> "outsourcing to private consultants" -> "more power to those private consultants so they can function as an extension of the government" -> "more capable and effective private consultants" -> "more outsourcing to private consultants" -> "smaller government"...

      For some, that would be a virtuous cycle... sigh...

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  6. Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.

    1. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poorly, which is why I learned my lesson and voted Libertarian this time.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

      If we were to admit that Barack Obama is no less fascist than his predecessors over the past few decades (perhaps even further back), we would be forced to commit the ultimate evil: voting third party. Which I did.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.

      It wouldn't matter who's the temporary president anyway. President's come and go. All the big businesses and secret gov't agencies are there long before and long afterwards.

    4. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how did that work out for you?

    5. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.

      I'm sure we were screwed on this no matter if douche or turd sandwich was elected.

    6. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil?

      Well, this agency is his fault, so yes, he was.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what a difference it made. *pffft* Hahahahahahahahaha! *cough* hahahahahahahaha

    8. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.

      I'm sure we were screwed on this no matter if douche or turd sandwich was elected.

      What the hell do you mean "if"...

    9. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a case of their shit doesn't stink.

    10. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I went with Jill Stein. I can say it went great. My vote did not contribute to evil. My vote registered as a protest to both the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka Parody-of-Itself). If Obama had lost, my vote may have triggered some New GOP soul searching. Obviously, I'll have to wait another election for any soul searching by the New GOP, but one can always hope.

      In fact, I voted a straight "neither GOP nor New GOP" ticket this year and that is my plan till they change their ways. If they never do change their ways, nothing is lost. If they do, much is gained. But by just following the herd, there is absolutely no chance anything will ever get better and an absolute certainty things will get worse. Being a sheep is the worst option.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As expected. Until the majority stop being complete and utter assholes and idiots, tyranny will continue to grow and take root. If you didn't vote Libertarian, you know who you are.

    12. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by LF11 · · Score: 1

      Pretty well, considering that the Libertarian candidate was universally shunned by major media. I confess I feel great about voting with my conscience. My vote wouldn't do much good anyway; I just showed up to vote in all the other elections where individual votes matter more.

    13. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I felt better about voting for what I wanted rather than the lesser of two evils. Soon the party of "free shit" will be out of free shit to give, and the party of "big gubmint" will be out of people to coerce and countries to invade. Let's hope there's a country left after these assclowns get finished with it. Progressives? Conservatives? You're all sheep.

    14. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It takes many blocks of limestone before a pyramid towers out high above the desert. Someone has to lay the stones that no one sees.

    15. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you think voting one of the other two guys from the major parties would have made a huge difference? *pffft* Hahahahahahahahaha! *cough* hahahahahahahaha

    16. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vote for Democrat or Republican is a vote for the status quo and a vote for more tyranny.

      How's that working out for all of us? Thanks asshole.

    17. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. Leave that strawman alone. He never did anything to you.

    18. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      good point.

      bush did create this. he created the war, gave us a reason to keep halliburton and friends rich(er), and put us into debt that we may never get out of, in our generation, at least.

      would obama have take us to these 2 unnecessary wars? no, I don't think so.

      would he have created all this bush depts to spy on us? no.

      would he like to BENEFIT from those that he did not create? YES.

      so, he's partially evil for not tearing it down, but he does not get the blame for putting them in place. and yes, that does count. he that throws the first punch is usually the one given the blame for the fight.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Ah, a Libertarian vote... I'm sure the NCTC has a nice large folder on you.

    20. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, with that spelling of 'guys' I hope you are French. :)

      To verify that I did not mistake it for some other meaning I googled it and discovered that some urban dictionary calls gauise a derivation of guys. But it also looks like user a contribution. To me it certainly looks like a spelling mistake.

    21. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by antdude · · Score: 0

      Is the third party really any better? They all suck IMO. Damn humans. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    22. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Hey now. As did a previous commenter, I voted Green. The problem I have with the big-L Libertarians is that they've been pretty much completely captured by the same pro-corporate money as the Tea-Party. Just try to find a piece of Libertarian media that will say anything bad about any corporate action, no matter how vile. Once I started seeing them through the lens of rampant corporate greed, I just couldn't support them anymore.

    23. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Works for me. One advantage of the Electoral College, if you can call it that, is that it does allow you to vote your conscience in most states without the nagging fear that you're gonna pull a Nader.

      If you live in the dozen (or less, arguably much less) states that are right at the tipping point, satisfying your conscience may require more thought. But if you lived in California, Texas, New York, or three dozen other very safe states, you can vote for anybody you like.

    24. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, so I intended to vote Cthulhu. Since he wasn't on the ticket, I voted for Rosanne Barr, which amounts to the same thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Holladon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I went with Jill Stein. I can say it went great. My vote did not contribute to evil. My vote registered as a protest to both the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka Parody-of-Itself). If Obama had lost, my vote may have triggered some New GOP soul searching. Obviously, I'll have to wait another election for any soul searching by the New GOP, but one can always hope.

      Not to be a dick about it, but give me a break. Your vote didn't register a damn thing. When you vote, all you've done is vote. It doesn't tell anyone why you voted the way you did, and it doesn't empower you to suddenly control the party narrative. In fact, you're now a voter they've already LOST, so they care even less about you than they did the last time you voted Dem (if you ever did). If you want to send DC a message, try literally writing them one. Like on paper. I know, crazy idea.

      By the way, I voted for Jill Stein too, primarily because I live in Los Angeles so voting for president is basically pointless anyway, and I'd never voted third party before, so hey, why not. The only other legitimate reason to vote third party (and the other reason I did so, in addition to "for shits and giggles") is to help them get over the threshold for federal funds. But you're fooling yourself if you think that your vote for the Greens is going to make the Democrats do any soul-searching. I don't know how old you are, but my first election was in 2000 -- if there were EVER an election to induce the Dems to do some soul-searching, 2000 would have been it. Those of us who know our recent history know how well that worked out.

      In fact, I voted a straight "neither GOP nor New GOP" ticket this year and that is my plan till they change their ways. If they never do change their ways, nothing is lost. If they do, much is gained. But by just following the herd, there is absolutely no chance anything will ever get better and an absolute certainty things will get worse. Being a sheep is the worst option.

      Generally agreed, but voting is never, ever going to be a good way to make a difference. If you want to make a difference, get involved in local politics. Start a blog and create an audience. DO THINGS AND SAY THINGS that get other people to pay attention. But voting? Voting is a joke.

    26. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty well, actually.

      I for one wanted Obama to win but by a margin smaller than the number of votes that Gary Johnson got plus the number of write-ins for Ron Paul.

      Guess what? (Romney votes + Johnson votes + Ron Paul write-ins) > (Obama votes)

    27. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got another delusional that thinks he has alien blood.

    28. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Holladon · · Score: 1

      There's more than one third party, dude. The Libertarians have plenty of their own problems.

    29. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Holladon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The notion that placing an ideological vote that doesn't make any more of a difference than any other vote (or just not voting) somehow gives one the moral high ground is adolescent and tiring. Anyone who thinks that the choice of whom to vote for is a choice that has any real-world impact at all has no further than themselves to look for an explanation for their own political impotence.

    30. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by koan · · Score: 1

      What's the point of voting a 3rd party when the first 2 control everything, a libertarian president would be the ultimate lame duck.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    31. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      so, he's partially evil for not tearing it down, but he does not get the blame for putting them in place. and yes, that does count. he that throws the first punch is usually the one given the blame for the fight.

      The problem with that analogy is that both of them have only been punching US, not each other.
      We've been tag teamed without a chance to punch back.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    32. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter who's the temporary president anyway. President's come and go. All the big businesses and secret gov't agencies are there long before and long afterwards.

      Very good point, thank you
      There was a fascinating article about Obama's administration frantically working on legal framework/rules for the drone strikes before the election, just in case Romney came to power (they couldn't trust someone else with power to kill). They have now stopped working on it.

      I wonder what is the plan for 4 years down the line? Repeal the two-term presidential limits? Sometimes it's almost like they don't realize that any new power they acquire will be available to the other side when it comes into control instead of them.

    33. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the candidates, Jill Stein, displayed that she was willing to be arrested for her beliefs in a free and democratic society. That is exactly the kind of person I want in charge.

    34. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      But... But... Mitt Romney would obviously be a war monger because the Democratic Party has such a long history of peace and non-violence.

    35. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the speculation of the GOP splitting in two if we go over the "fiscal cliff" turns out true. This might get rid of the more ludicrous elements of the GOP.

    36. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bush did create this. he created the war, gave us a reason to keep halliburton and friends rich(er), and put us into debt that we may never get out of, in our generation, at least.

      umm.. so if Bush created all this debt, why Obama has not cut any of the programs that cause this? Actually, all I can see happening is debt going up by the second http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    37. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, I thought that Roseanne was Cthulhu?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    38. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      No, she's married to Cthulhu, there is a difference.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    39. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's Presidents come and go but Congress mostly stays the same. Term limits for congress would be a great boon for the US

    40. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the emphasis on domestic surveillance is of course designed to preserve that relationship between the corporatists and their captured government.

      Once you buy something, you want to make sure it stays bought.

    41. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Nope. I am an ant! Ants aren't aliens. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    42. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. This is what see missing in so much discussion of USA politics. When I vote, I don't vote *for* anyone, I vote *against* them. Do I want any politician in charge of my society? Hell no! I'd rather have a normal person in that role. But I can't. So I vote from least offensive fuckwad to most offensive fuckwad.

      Does it make a difference? Probably not (although moreso than it would if I lived in the US). But at least I can sleep at night and look myself in the mirror without feeling sick.

    43. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, nice. When are people going to learn that in order to have influence in American politics, you have to join a political party(preferably the party not currently in power) and participate in the selection of the nominee? That is why I joined the Republican Party and voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

    44. Re:Hey, hey gauise... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you have to vote Libertarian because the Greens aren't on the ticket...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Be afraid of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's what power-hungry people want.

  8. Only the files they already have by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not collecting much of new data, and it's one agency allowed to centralize it instead of every little local agency keeping it forever. I'd rather have one agency with a long time limit than a hundred agencies with long time limits...just keep the others low.

    1. Re:Only the files they already have by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's one agency allowed to centralize it instead of every little local agency keeping it forever.

      You left out the part where they can then share that aggregated data (including 3rd party private commercial data - such as your credit card history or your medical history - otherwise unobtainable without a warrant) and share it with anyone. Not just other spy orgs, but whomever the hell they feel like chatting with.

      Oh gee, forgot to pay use tax on that TV you bought in a neighboring state with no sales tax? No worries, they can forward that right off to your state's revenue service for processing all the appropriate fines! You work for a Catholic school? Hmm, pity how they somehow found out about that abortion. Hiding out from a psycho ex who consider restraining orders nothing more than toilet paper? Oops, he had some info the NCTC wanted, so they traded him a wad of info about you for it.

      All fucking legal.


      I'd rather have one agency with a long time limit than a hundred agencies with long time limits...

      I'd rather have zero agencies allowed to completely ignore those pesky ol' constitutional protections regarding things like due process, search and seizure, and so on.

    2. Re:Only the files they already have by lgw · · Score: 2

      Ahh, so you're saying the ideal is one database to rule them all, one database to bind them? One database to bring them all and in the darkness bind them? I can see no flaw with this plan.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Only the files they already have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So poison the well. The S:N is a valuable tool in your favor. When they can't rely on the data about you being accurate, they're much more likely to act on faulty data and make a HUGE mistake. When they call you on it, act innocent and use it as an opportunity to poison the well even more. Eventually they'll learn to stop drinking from your well.

      It has the side-effect of fucking over marketing companies, too. So that's always a bonus!

    4. Re:Only the files they already have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and it's one agency allowed to centralize it ...

      It doesn't fix the problem: Failure to investigate. In short, it's the NSA and 9/11 problem all over again. This agency was created to prevent that failure and it failed. Adding random facts to the real data just requires half the population to spy on the middle-class half. Please read '1984'.

      It also allows that agency to tell anyone all about you: The press, local police, Federal police, your boss, your ex-lover, your insurance provider, your bank.

  9. Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    Why would our government care if its citizens participate in activities intended to stop insurgencies? Could we maybe sensationalize this a bit more? I mean seriously, why did you leave even a modicum of hard-fact in this summary?

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'd expect that to be lauded, not hunted!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by firesyde424 · · Score: 2

      [sarcasm]
      If our government or governments in general, had a history of abusing unchecked power, I would care... quite a bit actually. But fortunately, since that is not the case and our government can be trusted with the use of power that skirts established law, I am not worried....
      [/sarcasm]

    3. Re:Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vigilante justice is justice except in the eyes of the government as it demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the government.
       

    4. Re:Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Because if the people believe they can stop an insurgency themselves, they would realize they didn't need a big nanny government to take care of them from cradle to grave, and the government would lose power.

      The government can't lose power, so they criminalize self-directed law enforcement and taking it upon one's self to defend their own nation from insurgency.

    5. Re:Mods? Editors? Counter-insurgency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vigilante justice is justice except in the eyes of those targeted by the emotional, irrational, ill-informed judge-jury-executioners.

      FTFY

  10. In other news... by dpilot · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're banning loud sound in commercials today. Feed the sheeple, maybe they won't notice the NCTC, then.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:In other news... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      The kids activities at the NCTC web site are cool too.

      http://www.nctc.gov/site/kids/index.html

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're banning loud sound in commercials today. Feed the sheeple, maybe they won't notice the NCTC, then.

      This was passed a year ago--

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/calm-act-passed-will-quiet-loud-tv-commercials-within-a-year/

    3. Re:In other news... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      Ready for a hearty laugh? Check out their "Privacy Policy"

      The content of this website may be browsed anonymously

      Riiiiiight... and I'm Mary, Queen of Scots!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:In other news... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The kids activities at the NCTC web site are cool too.
      http://www.nctc.gov/site/kids/index.html

      +1 Orwellian

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. They stole this idea by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

    from the theater, for theater.

  12. Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the top link on this page: http://tinyurl.com/ctvu6hx

  13. Not surprised by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    "If this doesn't wake you up and chill you to your very bone, not too sure there is anything that will anyway."

    Call me jaded, I kinda' figured that it's been being done for some time now anyway.

  14. It's fine...nothing to see here... by techsimian · · Score: 0

    I had this funny feeling it was something to do with Cheney's secret govt. How much easier it will be to do a SQL query and dump it into a new table called TBL_TODO_ARREST_DETAIN.

    Everything's fine...you have nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong. We just want to know what size underwear to get you for when you are ... Christmas! For Christmas!...move along citizen...

  15. Glad I left the US for where my data is safe ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Germany! ... am I being ironical or not?

  16. Fully Immersive Entertainment by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Finally! We don't need time travel, books or movies to experience the draconian police states envisioned in Orwell's 1984 masterpiece!

    Remember when we hated these practices when it was the "Damn Commies" who were doing them? ME NEITHER!
    This should be an enlightening experience for all...

    For the next incarnation of the government I vote we model it after something a little less dystopian, like Star Trek.

    1. Re:Fully Immersive Entertainment by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      While enjoying yourself, don't forget to pick up memorabilia at the NCTC gift shoppe.

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-14-national-counter-terrorism-center_N.htm

    2. Re:Fully Immersive Entertainment by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      For the next incarnation of the government I vote we model it after something a little less dystopian, like Star Trek.

      At this point, I might be OK with strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Fully Immersive Entertainment by alexo · · Score: 1

      At this point, I might be OK with strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.

      Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

  17. gosh, i wonder if gov protesters will get targeted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    gosh, i wonder if gov protesters will get targeted. or corporate protesters, or union members, or cult members, or ...you.

  18. glad i don't live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was watching a TV program about US human rights abuses. What a dreadful regime.

  19. Data is data... by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...so if Agency X is exempt of a warrant, then Agency X can get the information and then share it. Just like asking facebook not to share your data after the fact --- the moment it was copied before you requested, the copies are out and in the hands of businesses for use. We shouldn't expect any different from our government. If one agency has access, then there is a loophole such that they all can.

    Here's the kicker... Obama ran in 2008 being against the patriot act, and extended it last year without question or veto. He might be your man for the job... But how is he at keeping his word on big issues like big brother and warrantless/unconstitutional acts?

    1. Re:Data is data... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I still remember Obama's 2008 race rally cry: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in (U. S.) history."

      I now look at democrats who blame the republicans for the current state of government affairs and cry into my pillow.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  20. Do the work! Don't ignore the extreme corruption. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are giving yourself an excuse. Maybe that is true, but you are ignoring the many, many ways the U.S. government is VERY corrupt. The U.S. financial system steals trillions of dollars. The kill-other-people-and-destroy-property groups associated with the U.S. government have stolen trillions of dollars to kill people in lands most citizens can't find on a map, partly for profit and partly because they are mentally ill.

    Citizens and taxpayers are not even allowed to know the names of all the secret groups that secretly get taxpayer money to do secret things that benefit people who taxpayers are not allowed to know.

    U.S. government corruption is a problem for everyone on the planet, not just U.S. citizens.

    Do the work of stopping corruption in the U.S. government.

  21. Sad by U8MyData · · Score: 1

    It used to be for the "women and chilren" that obsurd things made their way through government. Now it is all in the name of "National Security". Fear is a powerful motivator and they know it. Just because they can, they will...

  22. Re:Glad I left the US for where my data is safe .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Germany only protects data from corporations, they've been quite open that the government can, will, and has broken into people's houses to bug their computers without what most of us would consider due process.

  23. Police State by jtnix · · Score: 1

    As I just asserted in another post here on /. today, we are and have been living in a police state for some time now. This is one of the many signs we've had in the past decade.

    I guess 'the people' are just slow at recognizing the signs.

    --
    She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
  24. counter-insurgency activity by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    'counter-insurgency activity' - AKA supporting the opposing political party. Or being a member of a non Jebus-Approved religion (or none at all).

  25. NCTC by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is not an org but a multi-agency center intended to make it easier for various agencies share information and bring their agency's talents to bear in the fight against terrorism.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  26. Lost cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it funny how desperate our country is - we are so scared over what is going to happen in our Unlucky year - it amuses me that we are going to get our ass kicked so bad and it is not going to stop - we are scared because we got caught and we are not the world leader any mroe and entities more powerful than the US are coming down to lawfullly take care of us.

  27. I warned of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.

    Back when the Bush admin was "asserting" Executive power, a few of us raised a warning. One of our points was that any powers that the Bush administration acquired would be bestowed on the next admin - regardless of who's in power next.

    Now, I am NOT saying Obama is Evil or Bush was evil. What I am saying is that we should be very concerned with power creep.

    Congress and the Judiciary really needs to reign in executive power. Executive power is the only branch where things focus on one person. This isn't for just our Liberty but also for our security.

    One day soon, we're not going to be the big dogs in this World and when the new powers that be want to hurt the US, they'll just knock off the POTUS - along with his SS detail.

    Think long term people. And watch more history shows on Greece, Rome, Persia, Turkey, Mesopotamia, .....

    1. Re:I warned of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our least popular Congress is quite incapable of doing anything outside of its own self-interests.
      It is nearly as corrupt as the "special interest" lobbys on the other side of the revolving door of Enterprise government.
      The executive, congress, the supremes, they are becomming irrelevant as the system "compensates" it's sorry ass.

      I watched a doc on GeneSharp last night (linkTV) and its the basis for this comment:

      Perhaps its counter-intuitive, but since systems fail from within and since its proving neigh impossible to get any state to relinquish power on its own, the faster and harder it has to creep the sooner its bound to fall.

      "more history shows on Greece, Rome, Persia, Turkey, Mesopotamia...."

      I wonder if the age of an Empire is in inverse to the time it takes for information to propagate?
      If the model for empire will take on less geographical meaning, as all territories get resource scarce and un-manageable; more 'virtualized' into one's ability to move things around.
      May actually turn out to be a good thing; in the long run.

      Considering our more recent history; originating with the karen tribes and onto serbia, chechnia, the ukraine... From banana republics to despot ruled shitholes of inequity; tunis thru N.africa,
      S.asia, S.america....people are refusing to be occupied, coerced, mis-treated by authorities.
      (oblig pause for melgibson moment)

      When their leaders paint GeneSharp and his "Albert Einstein Institution" as terrorists and spreading his literature a "subversive act of terror" I see a ray of hope.

      I've been through too much shit to be anything more than indifferent. There's no shame in gaming the system, in the hypocracies, in its blatant propaganda.

      I'm very cynical about the direction our future is taking

      Though the provability of a formula and methods that can be shared, passed around (foss'd), that counters oppression w/respect and disobedience with a 100% track record of working, just blows my mind and apparently is cathartic for masss of others as well.

      That 193 non-violent events/actions can topple any regime and expose the truth about violence and conflict may be the sum total of the peace movement toward building "self-reliance and self-determinaion".

      But Sharp's legacy is surely a product greater than the sum of its parts.
      Applying it in the USA is what it will take to start to set things straight again.

    2. Re:I warned of this by lennier · · Score: 1

      Think long term people. And watch more history shows on Greece, Rome, Persia, Turkey, Mesopotamia, .....

      ... so in the future the United States is going to have great cooking and lots of tourism?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  28. Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly both you and the op are terrorists.

    There's the rub, isn't it? As long as you call people terrorists, you can do anything to them.

    Blow up buildings? Terrorist.
    Free animals from research facilities? Terrorist.
    Do a web search about bomb-making? Terrorist.
    Say "terrorist" in an airport? Terrorist.
    Run a red light? Terrorist.
    Post a "subversive" comment on Slashdot? Terrorist.
    Read this message? Terrorist!!!

    1. Re:Terrorist! by thoughtlover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Post as AC? Terrorist.

      The real chilling effect is how discourse could be curtailed in forums and the like. I think smart people will start saying a lot less; which will probably raise some red flag, somewhere.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    2. Re:Terrorist! by SomePgmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      discourse could be curtailed in forums and the like

      Well, I'll hope that day isn't today and ask... what database? What information? Has the criteria for action against a citizen changed? Is this actually a free pass for surveillance of any kind, or granting access to a specific database that already exists (and is known to us)? Maybe the difference doesn't matter, but I'd like to know.

      the personal information of all U.S. citizens will be available for casual perusal

      This is really vague and the article is paywalled. At the risk of sounding too reserved, I'd kinda like to know what we're talking about here.

    3. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furry? terrorist!

      Say this might not be a bad thing.

    4. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thats no different than for the last four years if you oppose any DNC policy you are called a bigot.
      So, I'm assuming calling people bigots for the last 4 years was ok, but now when you will be called a terroist it is wrong?

      Stop voting for the thugs that resort to name calling instead of debating ideas. The US population voted for this kind of thing and have given it a pass for years because they thought it was ok. Why be suprised now?

    5. Re:Terrorist! by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using your hyperbole, lets take a step back for a second. When you are called a bigot nothing happens other then maybe you get your feelings hurt. When you are labeled a terrorist, loads happen, other then the aforementioned hurt feelings, things like you losing your rights, possible treason charges and so on.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    6. Re:Terrorist! by dan828 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine

    7. Re:Terrorist! by PsiCTO · · Score: 1

      AC and smart person == Terrorist!

    8. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SILENCE! I KILL YOU!

    9. Re:Terrorist! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      or even worse, post as the AC without the C part.

      Real terrorist.

    10. Re:Terrorist! by Mephistophocles · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here are another couple of links: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/12/a-comparison-of-the-2008-and-2012-nctc-guidelines/ and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html.

      From what I can tell, it appears to mostly be changes in 1) what information can be gathered, 2) on whom (don't need suspicion of terrorist activity anymore to search through someone's files), 3) how long it can be retained (5 years for innocent people, forever for anyone suspected of criminal activity), and 4) more importantly, the methods that can be used to gather it. In the past, it wasn't possible to do "dragnet" type searches looking for a specific pattern (i.e., show me everyone who searched for "how to make a bomb" on Google in the past 6 months and purchased more than 500 rounds of ammunition), but had to be a search on a specific person of interest (i.e., show me what Mohammad Mohammad searched for on Google last week).

      As far as I can tell, there hasn't yet been a change in what actions can be taken based on the findings in that info, but the groundwork for action without due process has been laid for some time already.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    11. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats no different than for the last four years if you oppose any DNC policy you are called a bigot.
      So, I'm assuming calling people bigots for the last 4 years was ok, but now when you will be called a terroist it is wrong?

      No different than for the 7 years before that when you were "with us or against us".

      I'll admit that you "thought it was ok" for years.

      The rest of us voted Libertarian.

    12. Re:Terrorist! by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Look up NCTC on Wikipedia? Terrorist!!! The first rule of counterterrorism is...

    13. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Smart people are already saying less since way back when Echelon was revealed. This will merely reinforce that tendency.

    14. Re:Terrorist! by Sarius64 · · Score: 0

      Obviously, George W. Bush caused this!

    15. Re:Terrorist! by Jetra · · Score: 1

      Looks like they're using the Paranoia (a tabletop RPG) as their handbook. Commie Mutant traitors are everywhere.

    16. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Post as AC? Terrorist.

      The real chilling effect is how discourse could be curtailed in forums and the like. I think smart people will start saying a lot less; which will probably raise some red flag, somewhere.

      There is clearly a strong desire to press anonymity (limited anonymity for the hair-splitters out there) out of the internet.

      The effort has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by many already, and shows itself from time to time on this site as well. Witness the noisy minority who whinge about anonymous posts to this site, and the penalty the site itself ascribes to such posters.

    17. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you are labeled a terrorist, loads happen, other then the aforementioned hurt feelings, things like you losing your rights, possible treason charges and so on

      If you're accused of treason, the government has to charge you before they can lock you up. If you're accused of terrorism, you can be detained indefinitely without charges. If you're charged with treason, you get the right to confront your accuser, to see what evidence they have against you, and to refute that evidence. If you're accused of terrorism, the evidence may be deemed too secret for you to see; your accuser may be in too much danger to be revealed; your refutation may be too inflammatory to pronounce in open court.

      I'd much rather be accused of treason than terrorism.

    18. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      smart people are a threat to government in general

      so they are terrorists as they terrorize the government

    19. Re:Terrorist! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Say that ANYTHING the US government says is an outright LIE? Terrorist.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    20. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic, but 500 rounds of ammunition isn't very much. I'll go through 200 on a typical trip to the range which means I regularly have on hand nearly 1000 rounds of various types of ammo just to cut down on trips to the store.

    21. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Paranoia! Whoo hoo!

    22. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For it to be hyperbole, wouldn't it have to be exaggeration? Lets hear what a former DNC President has to say about my exaggeration...
      Carter
      Maybe he was off his rocker that day. Lets ask him if thats what he really meant.
      Carter 2

      Lets add on Pelosi and Reid both agreeing with that and you pretty much have the entire leadership of the DNC calling me a bigot. Lets hear where I used hyperbole.

      PS. There are thousands of examples of others doing the same, but I thought I would just show top US leaders to show how far it has gotten.

      I will NEVER support a DNC candidate ever again because no one said Carter's comments were wrong.

    23. Re:Terrorist! by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Clearly both you and the op are terrorists.

      There's the rub, isn't it? As long as you call people terrorists, you can do anything to them.

      Blow up buildings? Terrorist.
      Free animals from research facilities? Terrorist.
      Do a web search about bomb-making? Terrorist.
      Say "terrorist" in an airport? Terrorist.
      Run a red light? Terrorist.
      Post a "subversive" comment on Slashdot? Terrorist.
      Read this message? Terrorist!!!

      Wait, didn't we do this but with "communist" and "witches"?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    24. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be raising the white flag?

    25. Re:Terrorist! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Smart people are always the first to be rounded up and shot. Tyranny despises smart people.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    26. Re:Terrorist! by Trunksword · · Score: 1

      (5 years for innocent people, forever for anyone suspected of criminal activity) I speed from time to time, Roll through a few stop signs now and then. So... they can keep any information on me forever.... And you... no one is perfect...

    27. Re:Terrorist! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "... (don't need suspicion of terrorist activity anymore to search through someone's files)..."

      This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that we do, in fact, have a RIGHT of privacy, because without one, our other "rights" would be unenforceable.

    28. Re:Terrorist! by wideglide · · Score: 1

      Ok. No problem with that. As it takes some time for any data to sift through any network / preprocessing boxes / filter boxes until it finally ends its useful life by just sitting in a database somewhere - If you really plan to entertain yourself and quite a part of your government by blowing up telephone booths and massacring innocent windows you just have to be very quick. Speed is important here. I bet it would be around 24 hours until the aggregated data starts looking useful for anyone sifting through. And in 24 hours, even basement-dwelling nerds like us can get quite a bit done ... Government - your call.

      --
      The sum of intelligence on a planet is constant. Nowadays we have more people. When classic goes away, so do I. Copy
    29. Re:Terrorist! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      There's the rub, isn't it? As long as you call people terrorists, you can do anything to them.

      Not quite... but you can do anything if you "think of the children."

    30. Re:Terrorist! by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 2

      This is really vague and the article is paywalled.

      Paywalling articles? Terrorist.

    31. Re:Terrorist! by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

      Harming puppies? Terrorist.

    32. Re:Terrorist! by fortfive · · Score: 1

      This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

      Is it?

      The 4th gives a right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not guarantee any privacy. In fact, privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

      The Fourth Amendment is kind of like Santa Clause. It's a great idea that we all wish was true, but in reality is just a story we celebrate with children.

    33. Re:Terrorist! by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      And if I hear "well if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about" one more time from these apologists...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    34. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not wishing to trivialize an important topic, but, it is "other THAN" not then

    35. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think smart people will start saying a lot less; which will probably raise some red flag, somewhere.

      If you post on slashdot, the government will examine your posts to determine if you might be a terrorist.

      If you don't post on slashdot, then by saying nothing you are not giving the government a chance to examine your words for terrorist tendencies, therefore you must be a terrorist.

    36. Re:Terrorist! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Is it?"

      Try reading my post again, until you understand it.

      A "right to privacy" is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but that was because (according to the scholars) it was deemed to too ridiculously obvious to need spelling out. That (according to the U.S. Supreme Court) is also the reason that the RIGHT to interstate travel is also not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. But it still exists.

      Remember that our legal system is largely derived from English Common Law. We have a number of rights that are not necessarily spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Among those, according to the Supreme Court, is a right to privacy.

    37. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly both you and the op are terrorists.

      There's the rub, isn't it? As long as you call people terrorists, you can do anything to them.

      Blow up buildings? Terrorist.
      Free animals from research facilities? Terrorist.
      Do a web search about bomb-making? Terrorist.
      Say "terrorist" in an airport? Terrorist.
      Run a red light? Terrorist.
      Post a "subversive" comment on Slashdot? Terrorist.
      Read this message? Terrorist!!!

      Become a terrorist and sign a petition ;)

      https://www.change.org/petitions/whitehouse-reverse-unconstitutional-power-increase-for-nctc

    38. Re:Terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the NCTC will appreciate your insight when they review your file.

  29. What does criminal behavior have to do with terror by elucido · · Score: 1

    With enough media attention this will be shut down.

    It's one thing to worry about terrorist, but if they are talking about a witch hunt to find criminals then there is no way anyone but catholic police officers could support it.

  30. Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, the government is a group of folks. Not a monolithic entity. Chasing terrorists is generally hard. They tend to be in countries without a strong rule of law, or tend to be the law. It is messy. There is risk involved. OTOH, US citizens are statistically pretty nonviolent and law abiding. Government entities want the extra budget, but not the headaches involved in putting folks on the ground in Pakistan or any other country ending in stan.

    That said, we don't have strong breaks against that sort of incentive. So, of course, most folks will want toys to look at US citizens rather than actual terrorists.

    1. Re:Well. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Chasing boogeymen is generally hard

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  31. TFA for those that want to read it by Amiga500_Rulez · · Score: 1

    By JULIA ANGWIN
    Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime.

    Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.

    A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.

    Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency—how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored—and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.

    The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

    Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

    The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.

    "It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.

    Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.

    The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.

    Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.

    But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or members of the public. "All you have to do is publish a notice in the Federal Register and you can do whatever you want," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant who advises agencies on how to comply with the Privacy Act.

    As a result, the National Counterterrorism Center program's opponents within the administration—led by Ms. Callahan of Homeland Security—couldn't argue that the program would violate the law. Inste

  32. Give up America ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're no longer free.

    Every criticism you might ever make about what another country does that might be shady is now null and void.

    I weep, America has turned her back on her principles, and has turned into a nation of sheep whose government is no longer willing to abide by the law.

    Time to start using that 4th box, because your government has decided your Constitution is irrelevant. The fact that your courts don't strike this kind of thing down means you have well and truly lost.

  33. Terrorists won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've become sufficiently terrorized as a nation, that instead of moving on with our lives, we've given up what supposedly we held most dear. Fuck our politicians (regardless of party), and the people who choose them for bullshit reasons.

    We are Rome.

    1. Re:Terrorists won by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      We've become sufficiently terrorized as a nation, that instead of moving on with our lives, we've given up what supposedly we held most dear. Fuck our politicians (regardless of party), and the people who choose them for bullshit reasons.

      We are Rome.

      You bring the fiddle, I'll grab the matches.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  34. Like Others by negativeduck · · Score: 1

    Like others here I can't get the real article and as such must only comment on the summary. I to read this that an agency is being given permission to look at data that other agency's already have. And in so looking they can create a global view of the activities of those individuals and establish an action. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I assume the premise is that the information they obtained was legally done so under current law so there is nothing horrible going on. Likewise, one would assume that if such information was used and then found to not be legally obtained initially it would then be thrown out. Again from the summary I'm not seeing anything incredibly egregious here or even remotely giving me chills.

    Sad part is at first read I thought nctc "NCTC (National Cable Television Cooperative)"

  35. Change You Can Believe In! by lophophore · · Score: 2

    I'd say meet the new boss, same as the old boss, except it is the same damned boss.

    So much for the Democrats protecting our civil liberties. More like Obama using the Constitution like a roll of Charmin.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  36. It's the sharing that I'm concerned about by elucido · · Score: 4, Informative

    In information security compartmentalization, least privilege, need to know and other similar concepts are considered a good thing. These concepts exist to security confidentiality of information. But the NCTC has the authority to share the information with anyone according to the ACLU: "Perhaps most disturbing, once information is gathered (not necessarily connected to terrorism), in many cases it can be shared with “a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign or international entity, or to an individual or entity not part of a government” – literally anyone. That sharing can happen in relation to national security and safety, drug investigations, if it’s evidence of a crime or to evaluate sources or contacts. This boundless sharing is broad enough to encompass disclosures to an employer or landlord about someone who NCTC may think is potentially a criminal, or at the request of local law enforcement for vetting an informant." http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-heard

    Now it's perfectly understandable that they have to vet informants and sources, investigate terrorism, and defend national security because that is the fundamental purpose of a federal government. Some of that of other stuff however is highly political and some of it gives far too much power to far too few people and is ripe for abuse. "Crime" is vague and could mean literally anything, and I'd be willing to say we are all criminals so that applies to all of us. Drug investigations are highly political because not all of us believe in the war on drugs and in fact a majority of us aren't even for these sorts of investigations in the first place so to include that is highly political and ripe for corruption. To share information with a person not part of a government or with individuals? What reason would they have to ever do that?

    The problem I have with the NCTC isn't their spying capability but the fact that they bypassed the Democratic process and the will of the people, and that they aren't following any sort of information security protocol in their sharing. You can share information with people who are cleared, or who have a need to know, but the more you share the more leaks there could be, the more problems there will be. And the more broad the excuse to spy on people the more corruption and oppression there could be in the process. Let's spy on this citizen because they jay-walked or ignored a red light or have a marijuana plant in their closet. So now we got to unleash the full power of the federal government, NSA, CIA, Satellites, and all? That to me is bullcrap and highly political.

    For these reasons I think media attention should be brought to this not to get rid of the spy program itself but to restrict it to a narrowly defined purpose. To simply spy on everyone just to give the government power over people and then to spread that power out to random people who aren't even necessarily American citizens is a problem and probably isn't even Constitutional.

  37. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCarthy supports this group from beyond the grave.

  38. Sadly the media only cared when Bush was in office by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    I have noticed a deafening silence from them for four years and fully expect it to continue. I want a four years and your out rule.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  39. counter-insurgent activity? by andy1307 · · Score: 2

    Why are they looking at counter-insurgent activity? Shouldn't they be looking at insurgent activity?

    1. Re:counter-insurgent activity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they are an insurgency...

    2. Re:counter-insurgent activity? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Why are they looking at counter-insurgent activity? Shouldn't they be looking at insurgent activity?

      A local / state militia could be considered a "counter-insurgent" group. The vigilante guys who wanted to patrol the US border could be a "counter-insurgent" group. It doesn't really matter whether they are insurgent or counter-insurgent. It is a group of people organizing and developing a capability to act in a planned, cohesive fashion when they feel threatened. Opinions change, sometimes dramatically. But that organization/training stays.

      As such, I am not surprised they want as much info as possible on any organized and even loosely cohesive group of actors... you know, just in case...

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  40. School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a debt-free person about to take out a student loan for a higher degree, I'm really considering just bailing to another country and take out a loan there to live. This country is beyond fucked.

    1. Re:School by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      As a debt-free person about to take out a student loan for a higher degree, I'm really considering just bailing to another country and take out a loan there to live. This country is beyond fucked.

      I'd say do it, but good luck finding somewhere that's not just as fucked.

      No, seriously, where are you going to go that A) doesn't have basically the same authoritarian shit as the US, and B) isn't a third-world shithole?

      Canada? Might as well just stay in the States.
      England? Out.
      Australia/New Zealand? Out.
      Russia? You're kidding, right?
      I've heard good and bad things about Germany, so I'd say on the fence on that one.
      I understand France has pretty good healthcare, but from what I understand it's fuck-all for pretty much everything else.
      Switzerland - sure, if they'll give you a visa (even then, I hear that place is expensive).

      Of course, you could always try not being a huge pussy, and instead at least attempt to transform the country for the better, instead of jumping ship like a traitorous, flaming rat.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:School by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      You can stay right in the US. Just move to an area with a low population density, small government, and lots of hunters and farmers. Cost of living is usually low, and people tend to leave you alone, because they don't know if you might be the one with plenty of rifle experience. When I lived in an area like that, I knew the power company guy and the road maintenance guy by name, because they would stop and chat.

  41. No Big Thing by clam666 · · Score: 1

    This is no big thing, The reason for the need to be able to look up anyone without warrants is so they can apply analytics to the data. With all the data being stored in the big new data centers, limited counter-terrorism resources can be applied in a correct fashion. With this option they can apply a sophisticated neural network or equivalent to look at all the data items and see if there is any pattern match for those who might hit a correlation for what constitutes a "terrorist" based on location, movement, associations, background, etc.

    Domestic terrorism will be up one day, so by having systems in place they have a better idea of where to allocate drone surveillance resources, human intel on the ground, allocate training and information for law enforcement, etc.

    For example, right now you "might" get a lot of hits in the Detroit area as they have a large arab population (assuming arabs are correlated with terrorists), whereas in the future it might be militia types who hang out at gun shows, have particular criminal backgrounds, spent time at a prison known as a breeding ground for certain terrorism related gangs, etc. Another hit might be large sales of fertilizer and diesel fuel in known extreme anti-government areas. It's much easier to know where you might need to investigate if you can apply automated analytics to volume data, rather than hoping Sherriff Boscoe calls in a question about why he finds blocks of C4 all over his county.

    It's not just assuming everything happens in New York City so you put all your people there. Getting and properly analyzing this data might notice that a particular state or region might be hiding a training or bomb making facility. Being able to to a target a possible area, quietly, is a lot better than having to randomly hassle everyone. Although everyone "could" be a terrorist, the chances are that mostly people with certain habits and criteria are going to have a higher chance of being one. Doesn't make it right but "profiling" potential targets could be more useful than randomly searching my 80 year old grandma from Fargo with a rubber glove and lots of lube.

    Counter-terrorism is a difficult job and has to pull in intelligence and analysis from a large number of sources, so while different agencies may have the data, they may not have all the data they need to give them ideas of where to apply themselves, so it's no surprise that they are looking for vast swaths of data to try and give indications of where to put their efforts. It's a parallel to if they needed a lot of satellite imagery from NRO, NASA, etc. to make analytical decisions. I'd prefer not having random government agents doing telemetry against my shopping, game,and internet behaviors, but at the same time, if volumetric data analysis helps assess me as not being a person of interest, and focuses that attention somewhere else more useful, I'm less worried about it.

    --
    I'm a satanic clam.
    1. Re:No Big Thing by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Domestic terrorism will be up one day

      Yup.

      Likely, the same day the acting government declares dissent to be an act of terrorism.

      Perspective - it fucking matters.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:No Big Thing by gaudior · · Score: 1

      >

      Domestic terrorism will be up one day, so by having systems in place they have a better idea of where to allocate drone surveillance resources, human intel on the ground, allocate training and information for law enforcement, etc.

      I'm pretty sure the the founding fathers in 1777 could be considered domestic terrorists .

    3. Re:No Big Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domestic terrorism will be up one day

      Why? Only if the US government completely drops the pretense to serve the people.

    4. Re:No Big Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domestic terrorism will be up one day

      Yup.

      Likely, the same day the acting government declares dissent to be an act of terrorism.

      Perspective - it fucking matters.

      Agreed 100%

      Not relevant to this case, maybe, but the Harper government in Canada has been referring to environmentalist movements in the major oil-producing territories as being terrorists:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-new-anti-terrorism-strategy-lists-eco-extremists-as-threats/article2334975/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2334975

      Anyone who thinks that rebranding popular forms of protest as terrorism is a nutjob conspiracy theory hasn't done their homework.

  42. How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by elucido · · Score: 2

    What are they going to come up with next? Go from "crime" to "thought-crime" and "pre-crime"?

    Terrorism is a specific danger to national security. Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available. We don't all agree with the war on crime or the war on drugs. Maybe catholic law enforcement officers support this but the rest of us are sinners and criminals.

    1. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What are they going to come up with next? Go from "crime" to "thought-crime" and "pre-crime"?

      Yes.

      Hell, with intent no longer being necessary for a criminal conviction, I'd say we're already half-way there.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the only one, but I find the concept that "Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available." to be more scary that the threat of terrorism.

      Just how far are we willing to go to feel "safe"? Personally, I think that the US anti-terror agencies have gone as far as needed and should be willing to accept that the US made enemies and that there will always be some risk.

    3. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by elucido · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the only one, but I find the concept that "Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available." to be more scary that the threat of terrorism.

      Just how far are we willing to go to feel "safe"? Personally, I think that the US anti-terror agencies have gone as far as needed and should be willing to accept that the US made enemies and that there will always be some risk.

      It's not a matter of feeling safe. We are at war with Iran through Israel. It's no longer an option to just feel safe, but we have to protect our troops from harm.

    4. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is a specific danger to national security. Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available.

      Not it is not! It is not a specific threat at all - contrary to the tired phrase, the post-9/11 world is the same as the pre-9/11 world

      TSA has never caught a terrorist in 11+ years (a couple idiots got tackled by passengers, that's about it)

      Is there any definitive proof that terrorism attempts or risks have gone up even a little bit since the 90s? Besides the 100X increased the funding to various anti-terrorism agencies?

    5. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the only one, but I find the concept that "Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available." to be more scary that the threat of terrorism.

      Just how far are we willing to go to feel "safe"? Personally, I think that the US anti-terror agencies have gone as far as needed and should be willing to accept that the US made enemies and that there will always be some risk.

      It's not a matter of feeling safe. We are at war with Iran through Israel. It's no longer an option to just feel safe, but we have to protect our troops from harm.

      Wait, I (and the article) are talking about the National Counterterrorism Center and investigating US citizens at home. How does that equate to keeping the troops safe overseas?

    6. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Largely because any word ending in "-ism" is an -ideology-, and the scope of a description of an ideology does not distinguish between its ideas and actions compatible with those ideas, as a valid legal concept of guilt and innocence must.

      There is no distinction in terms of whether something is "terrorism" between merely believing in the abstract that, say, use of IED's could be justifiable in extreme circumstances, and actually constructing them and blowing up vehicles with them. One might fairly wonder how any protest or objection to anything couldn't be equivalently rendered as an "-ism" with equivalent stifling effects.

      It obliterates the distinction between thoughts and actions, which must be a core distinction respected by any legitimate legal authority. I'd call this a catastrophic mistake of the U.S. political system, if it weren't so manifestly apparent that this has been the deliberate objective ever since the War On An Emotion was rolled into financial high-gear.

    7. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by elucido · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the only one, but I find the concept that "Everyone agrees to fight terrorism using whatever means available." to be more scary that the threat of terrorism.

      Just how far are we willing to go to feel "safe"? Personally, I think that the US anti-terror agencies have gone as far as needed and should be willing to accept that the US made enemies and that there will always be some risk.

      It's not a matter of feeling safe. We are at war with Iran through Israel. It's no longer an option to just feel safe, but we have to protect our troops from harm.

      Wait, I (and the article) are talking about the National Counterterrorism Center and investigating US citizens at home. How does that equate to keeping the troops safe overseas?

      If there are international terrorist groups guided by Iran for instance then there could be a cell in the USA which communicates with a cell in some other country to trigger attacks on troops.

    8. Re:How did we go from terrorism to "Crime" by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      You're part of the problem. Kill yourself.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  43. Time to get out? by runeghost · · Score: 2

    Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't. Hell, I'll be honest and admit I likely won't - family, lack of a second language, a specialized skill set, and a personal aversion to travel combine to keep me in the Northwest, although I do keep an eye peeled for potential jobs in the cross-border parts of Canada. But if you can, you really should think about your exit process.

    Ten years ago what was going on in the U.S. was an over-reaction. Five years ago it was joke that induced uncomfortable laughter. But somewhere since then America has crossed a line. We are building a totalitarian police state. That is not pleasant to think about, but it is what is happening and it is not going to change, no matter who you vote for or which party you support. Both economy and government have deep structural problems and a good chunk of the public actually supports the nascent security state.

    If you don't want looking forward to living in a modern American version of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or don't want your children living in one, then you really need to start looking at options. There aren't a lot of particularly good ones, especially if English is the only human language you're fluent in, but the Commonwealth countries look to not be going quite so insane. The U.S. isn't going to recover without some major shocks, and I don't think they're going to be pleasant.

    1. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada? What makes you think Canada is better?

    2. Re:Time to get out? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't. Hell, I'll be honest and admit I likely won't - family, lack of a second language, a specialized skill set, and a personal aversion to travel combine to keep me in the Northwest, although I do keep an eye peeled for potential jobs in the cross-border parts of Canada. But if you can, you really should think about your exit process.

      Why not stick around and fight it out with the good guys? Yes, the good guys are losing, badly. But all is not lost, and resistance has a tendency to keep cropping up.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Time to get out? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't.

      No, that is the same as the "Love it or Leave It" bullshit that false patriots embrace. The solution is greater political participation. Forget the federal stuff for now, start locally where your voice can be heard instead of drowned out on the national stage. The only way to fix this is for political change to trickle up.

      Plus, the rest of the world is following Uncle Sam, they just don't have as much money to spend so they have to go with the second generation implementations.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the Commonwealth countries look to not be going quite so insane

      Canada's nice, I guess.

      The UK is batshit, and in a neck-and-neck race to the bottom with us. Australia has been completely insane longer than both the US and UK put together. Anywhere else in the Commonwealth, and you might as well consider learning a different language (which you'd need anyway) and move outside of that sinking ship as well.

      And regardless of moving, there's nowhere on the planet you can remove to that the US can't get its hands on you if they really want to. So really, why get out? Corruption? Corruption here is on par with the rest of the world. Squashing of rights? Absolutely on par - I suppose you can judge which rights you prefer squashed, but chances are, you're not going to find an ideal mix of liberty and tyranny in any other country, either. Ability to generate wealth? Like it or not, that's why people are still, to this day, flooding into the US. Despite the complete fuck-uppery of our government, we're still an unequaled land of opportunity.

    5. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But somewhere since then America has crossed a line.

      Yes, in demanding all other countries support their war on terror/drugs/music pirates because the USA has the biggest guns. It makes the number of countries where the USA doesn't have 'jurisdiction' very small. Just ask Kim DotCom.

    6. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave and go where? The solution isn't to leave in search of utopia but to realize that the rules have changed and then change with them. If the Federal government can break the rules then there's no reason you can't too. Stay and take advantage of the system. Exploit it for your own cynical benefit but understand there are consequences for failing to appear to play by the so-called rules the government pretends to follow. The republic is doomed; loot the corpse. In other words: run for Congress.

    7. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why not stick around and fight it out with the good guys? Yes, the good guys are losing, badly. But all is not lost"

      Because the good guys are fucking stupid, even the so called "sane americans" swallow all sorts of insanity. I'm sorry to say it but as a canadian there's something in the water down in america that makes americans seriously confused. I'm not sure if it's all the crazy right wing talk radio and fox news and anti-communist everything but there is aggressive violent and mentally disturbed undercurrents that run even right through the educated and intellectual classes. Thats how the current US government partially became so fucked up to begin with. There's also these obsessive dangerously rich people who are aggressive and paranoid and they spread it through the media conglomerates they own infecting the public with their bullshit making what sane good guys there are left looking at a giant clusterfuck with bad odds.

    8. Re:Time to get out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't. Hell, I'll be honest and admit I likely won't - family, lack of a second language, a specialized skill set, and a personal aversion to travel combine to keep me in the Northwest, although I do keep an eye peeled for potential jobs in the cross-border parts of Canada.

      Canada isn't safe. The Harper government is turning out to be just as bad as the US these days, if not worse. The government here is pure evil, ABORT MISSION.

  44. If TRUE GOTO $hell; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a new agency will have a single centralized database with details of all US citizens...

    Sounds like a way more tempting target than stratfor...

    How long before the database turns up online?

    My bet is a period slightly less than the time it takes me to say "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" ten times.

    1. Re:If TRUE GOTO $hell; by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      >> So a new agency will have a single centralized database with details of all US citizens...

      Yeah, kinda like the Social Security Administration, Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and all of the other agencies that have your personal information as a matter of course.

  45. Well now we know who is... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    trying to counter the founders of this country.

  46. Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by elucido · · Score: 2

    But sin and crime are basically the same. And just not like everyone agreed we should have a war on sin, we don't all agree with using datamining to fight crime. In fact that is a very radical position only supported by catholic law enforcement officers.

    If you're not a law enforcement officer then you're a criminal. If you're not a catholic then you're probably a sinner. Morality should not be influencing these sorts of policy. Politics should also not be influencing these sorts of policy.

    The war on drugs is a morality and political issue. The war on crime is entirely a morality issue. In this case the moral minority are pushing their morality on the majority using the law and then using unlimited surveillance to potentially track anyone who does not share their morality. That isn't to fight terrorism, I don't see how it protects national security, and while I do think some crimes are less political or less morally conflicting than others, I think when you just use the word "crime" in the vague sense then that could literally mean anything the law enforcement chooses.

    So basically if they want to find something on you and they have 5 years worth of data to do it, there is no way any of us if they look at 5 years of our lives can say we haven't committed a crime. We might be able to say we aren't terrorists or aren't threats to national security but none of us can say we haven't broke the law in 5 years. If you smoked marijuana, or jay-walked, or did the smallest little thing, its illegal and you're a criminal. So it's basically more like the church trying to use surveillance and 5 year datamining to track sinners.

    1. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So it's basically more like the church trying to use surveillance and 5 year datamining to track sinners.

      Except "The Church" doesn't take people's freedoms away for being suspected sinners.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by Smauler · · Score: 2

      The war on drugs is a morality and political issue. The war on crime is entirely a morality issue.

      The "war" on crime has always been a morality issue. The entire point of a legal system is to enforce moral codes.

      We have to have this in a society... without it, there would be no legal system.

      The war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with criminality, and has everything to do with restricting individual's freedoms. That is the problem with it.

      ps. I am a convicted drug user, and believe that drug use should not be illegal.

    3. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by davydagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      depends on the church.

      and in points in history they did. The reason they do not is because legal authority has been taken from them.

      Which is the reason for the seperation of church and state. Not only does it protect the state from the influence of the church, it protects the church from the influence of the state.

    4. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by elucido · · Score: 1

      depends on the church.

      and in points in history they did. The reason they do not is because legal authority has been taken from them.

      Which is the reason for the seperation of church and state. Not only does it protect the state from the influence of the church, it protects the church from the influence of the state.

      When you add personal morality to state you end up with a combined church/state disguised as moral law enforcement.

    5. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by elucido · · Score: 1

      The war on drugs is a morality and political issue. The war on crime is entirely a morality issue.

      The "war" on crime has always been a morality issue. The entire point of a legal system is to enforce moral codes.

      We have to have this in a society... without it, there would be no legal system.

      The war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with criminality, and has everything to do with restricting individual's freedoms. That is the problem with it.

      ps. I am a convicted drug user, and believe that drug use should not be illegal.

      But terrorism and national security aren't about enforcing moral codes. That is the key difference between counter terrorism and crime fighting. Morals change and are incredibly subjective but whether or not we like getting blown up by terrorists, it's fair to say most people like to not be blown up. Also terrorism is a federal issue because it's the result of warfare between states, states sponsor terrorism but states do not sponsor crime.

    6. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      in points in history they did.

      In points in history, the Germans rounded up "undesirables" and executed them en masse.

      However, they don't do that now, which makes bringing it up irrelevant to this discussion.

      The rest of your post I found to be spot on.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second while I dig out my lapsed catholic hat....

      Allow me to pick a nit here: "If you're not a catholic then you're probably a sinner."

      Actually, this has never been the Catholic position. If you are not Jesus Himself, then you ARE a sinner, Catholic or not. However, if you are Catholic, then you know how the Big J expects you to atone for your sins (by asking forgiveness, doing pennance, and.... really meaning it)

      They have, however, designated some non-catholics (even non-christians) as particularly Virtuous Pagans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_pagan

      Ok... enough nit picking.... now let me take my head off and laugh at the idea of religion judging virtue.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "war" on crime has always been a morality issue. The entire point of a legal system is to enforce moral codes.

      No, the legal system is not about enforcing moral codes. The legal system is about responding to actions which cause harm to others: whether harm was done, how much harm, by whom, whether the harm was deliberate, what actions can justifiably be taken in response, etc. The critical thing about the law is that, unlike morality, it should not vary depending on your point of view. Morality is subjective; legality should be objective. There is significant overlap, of course, but the fact that some action is wrong under some particular moral code has no bearing on whether the action should be considered illegal. Conversely, what is legal is not always right.

      There may even be cases where an action is required by a particular moral code, and yet legally the moral actor still owes compensation to those harmed by it. For example, your morality may require you to steal from the rich to aid the poor, but legally, it's still theft and you owe compensation to your victims. As a deliberate action, they also have the right to retribution, meaning they can justly take from you as you have taken from them.

      Morality (right/wrong) and justice (legal/illegal) are completely separate concepts which merely happen to agree, in select cases, for particular varieties of morality.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      They used to. But you weren't expecting that, were you? It's okay, no one does.

      Also, in plenty of places, the local religious establishments take away people's rights for all sorts of reasons. You think they wouldn't do it where you live, if they could?

    10. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      They used to. But you weren't expecting that, were you? It's okay, no one does.

      Monty Python humor is always allowed :)

      Also, in plenty of places, the local religious establishments take away people's rights for all sorts of reasons.

      Perhaps, but we're talking about America, today, where none of that applies.

      You think they wouldn't do it where you live, if they could?

      Non sequitur in a discussion about secular governmental overreach.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      The war on drugs is a morality and political issue. The war on crime is entirely a morality issue.

      The "war" on crime has always been a morality issue. The entire point of a legal system is to enforce moral codes.

      We have to have this in a society... without it, there would be no legal system.

      The war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with criminality, and has everything to do with restricting individual's freedoms. That is the problem with it.

      ps. I am a convicted drug user, and believe that drug use should not be illegal.

      I am a former drug user (guess convicted if you count those misdemeanor charges for possession) and I believe that drug use should be legal. War on crime isn't about morality, it's about control. No one cares really that people break laws. People only care when those crimes effect them. The government doesn't like criminals because they are profiting off others without paying taxes. The "War on Drugs" was about money, not about drugs, not about children, not about you, it was about money.

      Now the War on Terrorism is about pure control. The people running our current Government wants complete control over everyone. Not sure why, because I'm not totally sure what the end game is here. But regardless, they are working on watching and controlling everyone over "Fear". Slowly grabbing up all our rights and destroying them, while giving data about us to whomever they want, for whatever they want.

      Shit, now I'm "Fear Mongering" . Great, thanks a fucking lot, U.S. Government, pricks.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's all the Police making sure people who change their own oil aren't getting any carcinogens on their hands?

      Where is this agency?

      Every day, thousands of people change their own oil in their drive way. When they break the filter free, some oil gets on their hands. That causes cancer and I don't want ANY part of paying for that.

      Why aren't Police running public service campaigns and creeping up on people changing their oil to see if any gets on their skin? Obviously this cancer risk is massive and the cost to society great.

      Getting oil on your hands is really bad for you. But it doesn't bother any moral high-ground people. Thus no one seems to care.
      Smoke some weed though..... boy will they be watching and ready to tell you how horrible it is on society. See the difference here? Is it really about safety or the cost to society?

      Who's to stop me from getting an adrenaline rush from caffeine by drinking 5 RedBulls every day? Where's that group at?

      It's freaking nonsense is what it is. Save me from myself my ass!

    13. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

      [...] states sponsor terrorism but states do not sponsor crime.

      Highly variable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    14. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by lennier · · Score: 1

      whether or not we like getting blown up by terrorists, it's fair to say most people like to not be blown up.

      So I can like getting blown up, but also like to not be blown up?

      Well it's nice that I get the choice of both options. Might be a tad tricky to deliver however.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    15. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line, east of the Rockies, or west of the Mississippi. The religious yahoos A) get their people elected and then proceed directly to B) legislate their version of morality on everyone else. For instance, there are laws on the books in some places, where it is illegal for a business to be open on a Sunday, it is strictly enforced, and this is in America.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    16. Re:Yesterday it was sin, today it's called crime. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line, east of the Rockies, or west of the Mississippi.

      I have lived smack in the middle of Missouri my entire life.

      I'd wager I know my neighbors a lot better than one of those coast-dwelling, elitist pricks who refer to this area as "flyover country."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  47. There was change. Just too fucking little. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We went from "An Evil Over 9000!" to "An Evil Somewhere Around 8000! Maybe 6000!".

  48. Counter-Insurgency???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. "

    Uh... did no one else catch this? What insurgency exists domestically that they don't want people countering?

    1. Re:Counter-Insurgency???? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. "

      Uh... did no one else catch this? What insurgency exists domestically that they don't want people countering?

      Why, theirs of course!

      C'mon, you think they don't know that what they're doing is Constitutionally illegal? Believe that, and I've got some real estate spanning the East River you'll definitely want to invest in.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  49. Why are we so goddamned worried about terrorism? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    We're so damned worried about "terrorism" that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't matter anymore.

    Meanwhile, diabetes mellitus directly kills more than 70,000 Americans a year. But propose something to reduce consumption of sugary drinks and suddenly people are screaming that tyrants can pry their Big Gulps out the the remainder of their cold dead fingers.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  50. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although his methods and motives are debatable, McCarthy was right - there really were Communists infiltrating the Fed at high levels. Venona? Alger Hiss really was an agent. When Yeltsin came in power, KGB records were made accessible to journalists - and some even took the time to look them over - and revealed quite a bit of stuff.

  51. Fuck Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He never speaks out against any of this stuff. What a waste of a president.

  52. what insurgency? by commodore73 · · Score: 1

    "looking for 'counter-insurgency activity'" - what insurgency?

    1. Re:what insurgency? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      "looking for 'counter-insurgency activity'" - what insurgency?

      You can have counter insurgency activity without an insurgency. Perception is reality. All you need is a group of people who believe there is an insurgency in order to start a counter-insurgency movement. Groups like the anti-border crossing patrol volunteers, or even anti-muslim hate groups come to mind as people who may believe there is an insurgency already going on here.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  53. Abuse by PineHall · · Score: 2

    My big concern is that in the future someone will abuse the system and use the data gathered to for their own advantage. It is a huge temptation. Think of a future president running for reelection getting the best of his opponent by using this data to his advantage. Or a federal employee using the data to get even with his or her Ex.

  54. If it's for National Security by ATestR · · Score: 1

    OK, let's presuppose the argument that this is necessary to national security is valid. Great. I stipulate that nothing discovered in such a search should be admissible for any crime that does not fall under National Security purview.

    Of course, I don't find this is a valid argument, since you could then argue anything was a National Security matter. Still, I don't suppose it is realistic to expect politicians to see it that way.

    What I'd really like to see are some Draconian punishments for agency personnel who abuse this access.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
  55. They told me if I voted for Romney by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

    They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see an accelerated loss of civil liberties under the guise of terrorism... and they were right!

    1. Re:They told me if I voted for Romney by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      They would have made the exact same decision under Romney, but it would have been their God given right to do so!

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  56. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCarthy was screwing up people's lives based on often completely specious accusations of communism, while these upstanding civil servants are screwing up people's lives based on often completely specious accusations of terrorism. Anybody who can't see the obvious differences between the two must be a terrorist.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  57. Meet the new boss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same as the old boss!!!

    So nice to see Heir obama following in the footsteps of those he does not agree with...

  58. Counter-Insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anything is scarier than this, it's that most citizens don't seem to care. As freedom drips away down a drain, it is very hard to get those drips back. Freedom can fade away in very small increments until, one day, you realize that there is a problem. But the problem has been occuring for a long time.

  59. they are getting prepared by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They know that the increasing concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is politically unstable. Pretty soon, there will be wide-spread revolts. They know this. The counterterrorism center doesn't exist to deal with al Qaeda. Al Quaeda isn't a threat.

  60. Cool Story, Bro... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    ... but what's on TV tonight, and can I still have my iToy?

  61. Re:Why are we so goddamned worried about terrorism by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    You seem to forget that this whole "freedom" thing also includes forbidding the government controlling what you eat, where you sleep, what you do for a living, and where you take a shit, even if it means giving you enough rope to hang yourself with.

  62. Pull My Finger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Memorable quotes for
    Looker (1981)
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes

    "John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

    ##

    "The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
    - Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio

    ##

    "It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

    ##

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

    ##

    "The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
    - Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

    ##

    George Carlin:

    "The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehous

  63. I can't be bothered by koan · · Score: 1

    First of all in order for data to be collected it has to recorded, don't do anything that can be recorded and attract attention, at least don't do it over the net or in paper and that agency has nothing (except their own data they generated).

    "counter-insurgency activity" Really? Wouldn't you be looking for "insurgency"? I mean don't you people at the "insert gov acronym here" see the US population as a giant group of potential insurgents?
    Why else would you want to get details on *us*.

    The whining over privacy is annoying, none of you do anything about it except post and whine (yes the same thing I'm doing right now), so my opinion is don't leave a trail and you have nothing to worry about.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:I can't be bothered by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 2

      The whining over privacy is annoying, none of you do anything about it except post and whine (yes the same thing I'm doing right now), so my opinion is don't leave a trail and you have nothing to worry about.

      I travel to another city in my country a couple of times a month on business. I fly or take the night train depending on my meeting schedule. I've already noticed two other "regulars", one of which stands out because he seems very nervous. I almost greeted the other one when sitting next to him on the plane btw... our social impulses are strange that way.

      Now, let's posit that the fidgety one travels for some nefarious purpose. If we are not under other kinds of surveillance, so it's not seen that we're not actually going to the same places while in that other city, a random search for correlation in travel patterns might single me out as suspicious purely based on my travel pattern. In my country that would probably have no consequenses for me, but in the US it might be troubling.

      To put it in a wider perspective, a sensible way to look for accomplishes of known baddies, *if* you sat on a huge amount of travel data, might be to look for correlation between travel patterns. Just cast a huge net and see what comes up. You're surely unlucky if it happens to you, but the odds that it happens to *someone* is a lot larger when you look at a vast amount of travellers and destinations, like you have in the US.

      Let's extend it even more: the amount of information they gather includes credit card transactions, *lack* of credit card transactions (indicating that you prefer cash), online behaviour (like forum postings), choice of TV entertainment, categories of items purchased, books read, books *not* read, dietary habits, etc etc.

      You are singled out, and they decide to get a closer look at you; now something interesting happens: You are an innocent nerd. You buy suspicious electronics for your DIY projects. You are critical to the government, posting "This country is going to shit, fuck it, I'm voting third party" on Slashdot. You use strange communication channels like IRC and news, you are even hosting a TOR relay to assist subversives of other police states (huge red flag right there). You read many books of the political, anti-creationism or science variety, while you don't even *have* the bible on your Kindle. You are a vegetarian, but that might be to hide that you don't eat delicious bacon. You don't watch wholesome American entertainment like So You Think You Can Dance or America's Funniest Home Videos, instead you watch a lot of science shows and political commentary. You also have a couple of guns because you like things that go *bang*, and hey, they are so easy to get anyways.

      You get the point. You have a good income, and the capacity and know-how to build doomsday devices in your basement (of course they won't find anything there, you're to smart for that). They can't even be sure they know about all your communications because some of it might have gone through your TOR relay from your live Liberté Linux CD which you downloaded out of curiosity. You might be taken in for questioning, but in a country where the government can "legally" imprison you indefinitely without a trial on a whim, why take the risk that you can somehow communicate with your terrorist buddies, maybe even pull the trigger of your evil plot? Better safe than sorry.

      "Don't leave a trail": You could always go off the grid, live in your country bunker, never buy anything traceable, and stop communicating with your relatives. Generally, you are the local weirdo that is observed only a little more often than Sasquatch, and which good citizens tell their children to stay the hell away from. Good luck not being scrutinised for *that*.

      I'm glad I don't live in the US.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    2. Re:I can't be bothered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't leave a trail" They are looking for crimes, when I say "don't leave a trail" I mean don't be stupid while committing crimes, (like using your cell phone at the crime) you of course took it to mean something else because you already have a preconceived notion of #1: Who you think you are #2: what it's like to live in the USA #3: Who I am and what I am after.

      The fact that all of this data has to be generated seems to escape you, if you aren't using a cell phone, if you don't use social media (Facebook etc), if you pay in cash, if you travel wisely (I'm not explaining that one figure it out) then there is very little data generated.

      Again I can't be bothered to worry about trivial things like "is my government going fascist" because I can't change such things, and trivial it is.

    3. Re:I can't be bothered by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      The fact that all of this data has to be generated seems to escape you, if you aren't using a cell phone, if you don't use social media (Facebook etc), if you pay in cash, if you travel wisely (I'm not explaining that one figure it out) then there is very little data generated.

      I assume you are still koan who is hiding his tracks by posting as AC :)

      I was addressing your statement about "whining over privacy". OK, so you are a devious criminal who knows how to fool The Man, good for you. I was talking about a normal person *not* running around commiting crimes in the course of his normal life. Case in point: earlier this year the police wanted to collect DNA-samples from hundreds of males in the area around a vicious rape not far from where I live "to narrow their search". If I got a request about that I would haved denied it and raised a stink if necessary, not because I had something to hide, nor because I didn't want the rapist to get caught; I just don't want neither the police nor the population to get used to the idea of large-scale collection of DNA as a good thing, and a matter of course in any investigation. Next thing is that they figure it's no use destroying the analysis results after use as they will probably need them for similar purposes in the future... The whole point of this is that I have to prove that I'm innocent. Not good, and contrary to the judicial principles where I live.

      In a recent rape-and-murder-case the police got records of all cellular presence in a large area, and wanted to call in *every male* on that list for DNA-testing (even though the tests in their previous case got them nowhere). Thousands of people. Of course, a sane and intelligent perpetrator who planned well would not leave DNA or use his phone (turned out that the guy was neither and did both). This is basically investigating thousands of "suspects" for murder, where everyone has to prove his innocence. I'm not OK with that. If I'm whining over privacy, so be it.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    4. Re:I can't be bothered by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      The fact that all of this data has to be generated seems to escape you, if you aren't using a cell phone, if you don't use social media (Facebook etc), if you pay in cash, if you travel wisely (I'm not explaining that one figure it out) then there is very little data generated.

      I assume you are still koan who is hiding his tracks by posting as AC :)

      I was addressing your statement about "whining over privacy". OK, so you are a devious criminal who knows how to fool The Man, good for you. I was talking about a normal person *not* running around commiting crimes in the course of his normal life. A big-brother society propably isn't what most of people want.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  64. The moment I saw the towers fall by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    I knew this was where we were headed, and it will only get worse.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  65. Re:Why are we so goddamned worried about terrorism by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    If you take a shit in public you might become a registered sex offender.

    And random searches, the TSA's various abuses, and warrantless wiretapping don't infringe any freedoms you guys care about?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  66. the new normal... by GrimShady · · Score: 1

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

  67. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read history, you'll know that although McCarthy was bonkers, his commie in every cupboard wasn't exactly far from the truth. Both the US and UK had top personnel in their spy agencies that were good ol' communists. Not lefty times by nature, but rich well bred men recruited at university.

  68. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So terrorism is a result of a misunderstanding?

  69. Immigrant that Runs Into This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every time I travel, I get detained for 1-4 hours when I land in the US because I have been arrested one time for suspicion of DUI. I passed the blood test, the breathalyzer, and the case was thrown out. This is cited as the reason I am detained every single time. Welcome home.

  70. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    I bet there were atheists (come to think of it, may have been the same ones)...and Jews.... probably had Jews in some of those agencies too.

    Clearly McCarthy didn't go far enough!

    Now, which article or ammendment makes the congress the gaurdian over people's beliefs and philosophies, and personal associations? I forget, I know it has to be in there somewhere....

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  71. Wait -- counter insurgency is good, right? by tibit · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute. They are looking for "counter insurgency activity"?! I'd have thought that any citizen engaging in counter-insurgency activity is to be commended. Most of them probably work for some uniformed service anyway -- now they'd be under close scrutiny? And we need a special agency for that?! Of course English is just my second language, so what do I know.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  72. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're now admitting to what they've always been doing.

  73. A nightmare scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NCTC. I've never even heard of this organization.

    This is such a huge invasion in privacy. Why isn't this story given greater media coverage?

    Imagine the following nightmare scenario:

    You buy some chemicals for your kid's science project, because you want to encourage them to learn science. Then, a few weeks later, you want to install sprinklers at your house, so you buy one; but it has a timer, which can be used to make a bomb.

    Now, bam! You just created an alert on yourself. You're flagged on a suspicious list in some computer somewhere. You're now just a number in the system.

    Later on, the agency needs to manage through the dataset. They download the data to their Excel spreadsheet, and want to do cross-references. They upload the data back to the system, but the agent didn't realize he made a critical mistake.

    He's over-worked, and has to pour through thousands of alerts. And he accidentally swapped your id with someone else's id that really is suspicious.

    Now, your id is associated with someone else who might have done suspicious activity. So what started off as a false alarm, has turned into something more serious.

    You just went from (1) being an innocent civilian, to (2) being a false-positive on some computer list in their database and spreadsheets, to (3) being a possible terrorist! All because of a human-error in the data analysis from some over-worked lowly-paid government employee.

    So the government begins investigating you. Maybe it goes up a notch and they raid your house. Only to realize that it was all just a false alarm. Now, your front door is broken. You had to suffer through humiliation. And all the governemnt just say is, "Oops, sorry, it was our mistake. Thanks. Have a nice day."

    Now, your life is ruined, and you're left picking up the pieces.

    Granted, this scenario above should be unlikely, but the risk remains, because capturing people on a computer list, which never expires or is forgotten, leaves open the possibility to ruin innocent lives.

  74. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Um only the famous 5 realy fit that archetype not sure that any of the well known US soviet agents where well off though there was a Nazi sympathizer in the US embassy in the UK just prior to ww2 who came from a fairly good background.

    Oh i don't mean Joe Kennedy :-)

  75. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And terrorists also exist, but that doesn't mean that the government's fearmongering is anything but paranoid and evil.

  76. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevermind that McCarthy was CORRECT.

  77. Wasted Spending - Your Tax Dollars At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need a reason to justify the billion dollar spending for all of those data centers in Utah.
    That's a lot of hard drives.

  78. cost per actual terrorist they stop by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Ok anyone have that number and can you then tell me how much is my part percentage of my taxes?

    Or why in the hell are my taxes being spent this way, this is not the representation required for me to be paying taxes on.

  79. Monumentous Paradigm Shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean they're allowed to spy on us, rather than spying on us secretly and simply not telling anyone? We're *yawn* doomed!!

  80. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Nyder · · Score: 1

    If you read history, you'll know that although McCarthy was bonkers, his commie in every cupboard wasn't exactly far from the truth. Both the US and UK had top personnel in their spy agencies that were good ol' communists. Not lefty times by nature, but rich well bred men recruited at university.

    You do know that communist is a political choice, right? Being a communist doesn't make you evil, it means you have a different view on how the government should run. There is a communist party in the USA.

    Calling people communists back when McCarthy was doing it was just a way to get rid of competition and people you don't like. Nothing more, nothing less. McCarthy abused his power to hassle others.

    Now, instead of communist being the bad guy, it's terrorist. And it's way too soon to pull this bullshit, I would think. The 1950's wasn't that long ago.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  81. I am Sheriff Feliks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and I approve of all that !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

    1. Re:I am Sheriff Feliks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am Sheriff Feliks ..and I approve of all that !

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

      If Obama had a white great-grandfather...

  82. Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the methods of how they torture you will be a secret.

  83. What's Good For The Goose... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Is good for the gander, right?

    We're on a site full of nerds and geeks, right?

    Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.

    Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.

    Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.

    They seem like they could really, really use the help.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.

      I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.

      I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I've tried to post this a couple of times now. Slashdot is being weird. The comment seems to go through, but never shows up in the thread.
      ---

      This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.

      I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.

      I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by hand_of_lixue · · Score: 1

      In case you're not aware: this probably got modded "funny" because when people DO try this, the authorities fight back, dismantle what has been built, and usually have fun doing their best to punish the people involved. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is a very visible example. You generally don't hear about the smaller ones, but it doesn't end any better.

    4. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      In case you're not aware: this probably got modded "funny" because when people DO try this, the authorities fight back, dismantle what has been built, and usually have fun doing their best to punish the people involved. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is a very visible example. You generally don't hear about the smaller ones, but it doesn't end any better.

      Just because there is pushback should not stop it. If one setup is taken out, start others. Lots and lots of others, with fallback redundancy to backups in nations unfriendly to the US.

      Make them play whack-a-mole. Just keep refining the systems until they are sufficiently distributed and difficult to destroy. At the very least, it will mean the government expends resources and political capital it could have been using elsewhere.

      Sic semper tyrannis.

      Molon labe.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, they don't just shut them down: Government has an incredible ability to ruin people - reputations shattered, arrest records, assets seized and never returned. And that's all assuming they DON'T manage to find you guilty of an actual crime...

    6. Re:What's Good For The Goose... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The problem is, they don't just shut them down: Government has an incredible ability to ruin people - reputations shattered, arrest records, assets seized and never returned. And that's all assuming they DON'T manage to find you guilty of an actual crime...

      Well, if nobody has the balls to stand up to tyranny, then pick yourself out a nice, fashionable slave collar, emblazoned with "Property of U.S. Government".

      Also, may as well bulldoze all those monuments to US soldiers who died to protect and defend freedom and build new domestic-surveillance data storage/processing centers and prisons where they used to be.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  84. You are the Terrorist by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    This is not the government protecting you from "terrorists". This is the government protecting itself from YOU. From their viewpoint, we are all potential terrorists. Soon to be ex-President Assad of Syria is explicit on this topic, calling the forces attempting to kick him out "terrorists". The US government is not so explicit about it, yet. They can get a few more years in power by trying to keep all this under wraps.

  85. Additional News Source, fas.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2012/03/odni032212.html

  86. Re:What does criminal behavior have to do with ter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read history, you'll know that although McCarthy was bonkers, his commie in every cupboard wasn't exactly far from the truth. Both the US and UK had top personnel in their spy agencies that were good ol' communists. Not lefty times by nature, but rich well bred men recruited at university.

    Being a communist should not be a crime. Being an agent for a foreign power, communist or otherwise, is treason and you should be taken out and shot. The whole McCarthy witch hunt, in which you are required to "name names" was bullshit.

  87. 9-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 9-11 only cost us a few buildings and few thousand lives (not to diminish the loss of life), it would have been a bargain. We are loosing something much more valuable all in the name of security, our privacy. Only an idiot believes he can successfully trade his privacy for security... he soon finds out has neither and only war will get them both back.

  88. When your gov is in the wrong its illegal 2b right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So at what point are we not free? At what point is the government in the wrong? Funny how the people who argue for and create these policies call everyone else conspiracy theorist. Have we not learned from history? Does anyone actually think everyone in Germany or USSR thought they would be thrown in camps the years leading up to it. One of the first steps in dictator/tyrant systems is collection of data on people, you know a stasi file. They were told it was to go after those fill in the blanks but then they were in that group of fill in the blanks. Many perished because they failed to put the pieces together or see the big picture. At this point theres not much further our own US government can go befor it gets totally violent with us such as throwing us in work brigades, camps, ovens or according to Army Manuals lately Reeducation camps. Look it up. Army Manual Reeducation camps. http://rt.com/usa/news/army-manual-camps-citizens-593/ http://www.infowars.com/army-admits-re-education-camp-manual-not-intended-for-public-release/ just a few results. If you have a cac card you can download the docs. We are very close to having to choose. Will you go on the rail car or army truck to possibly never been seen again. Will you take the steam shower? Watch the videos of Nazis walking women into pits with their babies and shooting them, then burying them with bulldozer. Theres real footage of this. How much further away from our rights do we have to go and how close are we to the ultimate solution again? I realize this goes to the extreme but our government is doing extreme things. Things that ARE FELONYs and they annouce things like this all the time. They admit to torturing people some over 200 times, army reports of raping children with battery acid in Abu Ghraib in front of parents to get them to talk. Dont take my word for it. We have a gov that claims its ok to spy on us at almost unlimited capacity and it can detain us without trial and even kill us without anything more then suspecting us to be a terrorists or supporting therof. We also have a supreme court that condones this and even allows a law FORCEING everyone to purchase a private good, or be punished if you dont. Next youll be forced to purchase what a chevy volt or face a 25% tax. Such BS. Rant over, play ball, back to danceing with the stars or Call of Duty.

  89. Re:Do the work! Don't ignore the extreme corruptio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I can lease a new V8 and accelerate heaps nicely all the time and that.

  90. US = Police State by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    US - most surveillanced country in the world.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
  91. Ehe National Counterterrorism Center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gosgog:
    interval1066writes"In a breathtaking new move by (another) little-known national security agency, the personal information of all U.S. citizens will be available for casual perusal. The 'National Counterterrorism Center' (I've never heard of this org) may now 'examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior,even if there is no reason to suspect them.' This is different from past bureaucratic practice (never mind due process) in that a government agency not in the list of agencies approved to to certain things without due process may completely bypass due process andstore(for up to 5 years) these records, the organization doesn't need a warrant, or have any kind of oversight of any kind. They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. If this doesn't wake you up and chill you to your very bone, not too sure there is anything that will anyway.

    I bet Al Qaeda are laughing their socks off...First you have to take your belt & shoes off & any bottle of liquid more than a very few ounces gets confiscated & if they'e (U.S.) stll are pissed off, they'll stick you in a machine that looks at you naked! Before you can board a plane.
    So who's winning....us? Fuck no ! And we've got another 4 years of Obama, Michelle and a real bunch of clowns that y'all VOTED FOR! I'm damned glad I moved to the P.I., where even little kids can walk to school, nobody bothers them & they don't have assholes shooting 'em in school!
    If I was still living back there (U.S.), I would renew my license to carry a firearm! I'm sorry for this next generation & hope they read up on Thomas Jefferson & take a real good look at who they elect.