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."
With enough media attention this will be shut down.
The government should need a warrant or due process to access its own records?
Of course, I did not RTFA
Anyone with a WSJ account able to post the article?
Remember when people were screaming that Bush was the root of all evil? How's that whole Obama thing working out for you.
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.
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
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.
Germany! ... am I being ironical or not?
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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, .....
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!!!
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
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.
McCarthy supports this group from beyond the grave.
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?
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.
Why are they looking at counter-insurgent activity? Shouldn't they be looking at insurgent activity?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
At least you can throw a rock at a terrorist.
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
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
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
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
"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
...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.
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!