Slashdot Mirror
Obama Releases National Strategy For Information Sharing
wiredmikey writes "President Obama on Wednesday released a national strategy designed to balance the sharing of information with those who need it to keep the country safe, while protecting the same data from those who would use it to cause harm. 'The National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding' outlines how the government will attempt to responsibly share and protect data that enhances national security and protects the American people. The national strategy will define how the federal government and its assorted departments and agencies share their data. Agencies can also share services and work towards data and network interoperability to be more efficient, the President said. The President aimed to address concerns over Privacy by noting, 'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.' The full document is available here in PDF format from the White House website."
The National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding' outlines how the government will attempt to responsibly share and protect data that enhances national security and protects the American people...The President aimed to address concerns over Privacy by noting, 'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be â" and will be â" protected.'
Great. That means we will never need to use Wikileaks again because the government will from now on share information with its people, and protect human rights.
This is a great sigh of relief to people like Julian Assange, Private Bradley Manning and those who respect their leadership and courage to share information about what their government is up to. Finally we get transparency in government while at the same time the average citizen will be free from unwarranted and ubiquitous surveillance.
This almost seems to good to be true. It almost seems as if I'm dreaming. It doesn't seem real: A government we can trust.
I call shenanigans. This is just their attempt at making us feel better so that we'll (resist less when we) "share" more data with them.
This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.
The US government does what it wants, when it wants. They "share" information by not protecting or encrypting data (ooooh, a laptop!) or by squeezing it out of foreign countries, and many other ways. They want every ISP to keep perpetual records on any and all web activity, cell providers to hand out live and historical GPS info, blah blah blah.
For those on their "If you're not doing anything wrong ..." soapbox just keep in mind that they will eventually get to the point that trying to protect the last semblance of privacy from the government will be classified as "doing something wrong". There's no need to keep any secrets lad, because we'll keep 'em for you. Scouts honor.
They are going to use MS Sharepoint, aren't they ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
"individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected"
Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act -- the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to spy on Americans speaking to people abroad without a warrant. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/senate-wants-sneak-warrantless-spying-bill-extension-law-without-debate-lets-call
Your information is our information, and my information is only mine, no matter where in the world you are.
If information can be gathered, it will be. If laws are passed to restrict access to it, people will find ways around the laws and/or just plain break the law when they want to. This is true in both the public and private sectors.
Whether it's websites that find new ways to track everywhere you browse, or government boffins who want to know what you eat for breakfast and how often you have sex, they ARE going to get that information. The technology exists now to do it, so they WILL do it.
What should TERRIFY all of us -- without exception -- is the way this is being handled, both in the private and public sectors: "we will gather the info, but we promise not to abuse it and we will restrict access to it."
Folks, that ain't gonna happen. People are people. Crooks are crooks and curiosity kills every time.
Perfect example and please don't take this the wrong way. I'm NOT trying to restart the old debate about healthcare in the US. But I have to admit that it has puzzled me that some of the same people who scream about businesses tracking everything we do, don't say a word about the FACT that the Affordable Health Care Act creates one of the largest, most invasive and complete databases of health information that has ever existed.
And our protection? The same thing you see here. "We promise not to abuse this goldmine of information in any way. We're the government and we're here to help. Trust us."
Do you REALLY believe that, in a tight election, juicy tidbits aren't going to magically "slip" out about some challenger's medical history?
I don't know what the answer is. But if you begin to understand that there is no real expectation of privacy anymore, you're at least headed in the right direction.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be â" and will be â" protected.'
I mean, really...can this statement possibly be any more Orwellian?
They've got to realize how totally full of shit that statement sounds, even to someone with no dog in the fight. I refuse to believe they are so clueless as to believe that statement does anything but incite and fan the flames of distrust and hostility.
It's like they're trying to get people to start a rebellion, so they'll have an excuse to declare martial law and roll the Hellfire-equipped drones, checkpoints, and armor out on the general population.
It would certainly be ironic if US citizens end up being saved from tyranny not by elections, rebellion, or the judicial system, but by Iran or N. Korea nuking Washington, D.C. either by ICBM or by a smuggled-in device.
Personally, if I were a D.C. resident and accidentally learned of such a plot, either to nuke D.C. and/or to assassinate top government leaders, I'd quietly leave town and keep my mouth shut. And that really hurts me to have to say about my own nation's government and it's leaders. But sadly, it and they have become everything that the US has fought politically and waged wars against for over 100 years.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It helps to have 51% of an electorate that is dumber than a box of rocks.
That's no hard feat in a country where at least 91% of the electorate qualify for that description. Educated voters are few and far between. Ask the average voter what he thinks about Keynes or parliamentarism, and you'll be met with a blank stare at best.
Why not just call it the Ministry of Truth?
This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.
Why don't I believe you? Oh, that's right, because you've expanded the power of the police state just as much as any executive before you.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Obviously this is a public relations piece, and has been meticulous scrubbed to minimize the risk of losing votes through accidental candor. Still, if you look carefully, you can catch glimpses of the mindset in the way things are phrased and structured.
From page 14, here are the top five priority objectives:
Priority Objectives
Top Five
The following objectives capture the highest five priorities of the Administration in achieving the infor-mation sharing and safeguarding goals of this Strategy.
1. Align information sharing and safeguarding governance to foster better decisionmaking, performance, accountability, and implementation of the Strategy's goals.
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
3. Adopt metadata standards to facilitate federated discovery, access, correlation, and monitoring across Federal networks and security domains.
4. Extend and implement the FICAM Roadmap across all security domains.
5. Implement removable media policies, processes and controls; provide timely audit capabilities of assets, vulnerabilities, and threats; establish programs, processes and techniques to deter, detect and disrupt insider threats; and share the management of risks, to enhance unclassified and classified information safeguarding efforts.
Notice anything different in the structure of the items? Here, I'll point out the one that is different:
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
See it yet? OK, I'll bold the section that makes this item uniquely structured:
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
Nice -- it's the only one that says, Except when it would interfere with the mission. Isn't it fascinating that every other one of the top five points is just stated, but with civil liberties, privacy, and civil rights, they feel both compelled and uninhibited in adding, Except when it would interfere with the mission. They couldn't make it through one simple declaration that sometimes the rights of the citizens enumerated in The Constitution preempt the authority of government without adding, We don't really mean this one.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance