Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Other Agencies Clamor For Data NSA Compiles

Posted by samzenpus on from the learning-to-share dept.

schwit1 writes "The National Security Agency's dominant role as the nation's spy warehouse has spurred frequent tensions and turf fights with other federal intelligence agencies that want to use its surveillance tools for their own investigations, officials say. Agencies working to curb drug trafficking, cyberattacks, money laundering, counterfeiting and even copyright infringement complain that their attempts to exploit the security agency's vast resources have often been turned down because their own investigations are not considered a high enough priority, current and former government officials say. Intelligence officials say they have been careful to limit the use ... for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights."

12 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No Catfood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember when paranoid fantasies were just fantasies.

  2. Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give them all the data they want, with the single condition that any and all wrongdoing found must be prosecuted. Part of me just wants to watch the chaos.

  3. 2 points by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) " for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights"
    The act of spying & collecting this data didn't already pass this threashold?

    2) Every government agency takes the permitted rules and pushes them to the limit & a bit beyond. In no time at all, the Smallville dog catcher's dept will have access to NSA data. "Think of the children - we need to know which houses have mean dogs, and which ones have small children! For their own good!"
    This should be no surprise.

    1. Re:2 points by boorack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, they don't use this data to curb drug trafficking, money laundering, cyberattacks. And it turned out that only one terrorist plot was POSSIBLY curbed with all this giant spying operation. This is enough to convince me that governments, banksters and corporations around it are using this surveillance to keep themselves in power and control US population regardless of how much fraud and outright crimes will the government do. From the beginning this had nothing to do with safety of ordinary americans and has everything to do with protecting corrupt, criminal US elites from US population. They don't give a crap about our safety or well being - should they care, they wouldn't defund and dismantle local police and fire departments just to ensure their fellow banksters have bigger profits (thanks to bailouts). They built this monster for the same exact reason STASI built its apparatus. Everything this surveillance would do to benefit citizens is regarded as unnecessary cost and we know what corporate aparatchics and their government cronies do with such "excess costs".

    2. Re:2 points by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The act of spying & collecting this data didn't already pass this threshold?

      While I tend to agree, I can at least commend the NSA for trying to limit the use of this data where there isn't an overriding purpose.

      The problem is that once databases like these are compiled there will be constant pressure to expand their use. First national security letters are used to find out who is reading bomb-making books at the local library. Later national security letters are used to find out who is reading communist/cryptography/whatever books at the library.

      The next problem is that these are secret databases whose existence isn't generally admitted to in the first place. How do these other agencies even know (prior to Snowden) that this data is out there to begin with? If they were obtaining data from these databases, how would we even find out about it?

      Better to not collect this kind of data in the first place, unless it is in reaction to a specific threat (and if there is a specific threat, you should be able to obtain a warrant which makes it completely legal). When this kind of data is collected, it should only be used for the original intended purpose.

    3. Re:2 points by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "It hasn't actually caught any terrorists!" argument (also applied to the TSA), while tempting, is an error on the part of anti-spying advocates. This is a mistake for two reasons:

      1. It puts the emphasis on the incidental situation, and not the actual violation of rights. So it makes it easy for the opposition to straw-man the civil liberties point of view, for example, that they're arguing based on a waste of money.
      2. The technology may well advance to the point where it does work. If our argument is frequently presented as "it doesn't work," when that changes, the civil liberties cause will take a massive hit to its credibility.

      So, it's better to stick to the real issue, which is that these programs are a violation of peoples rights.

    4. Re:2 points by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's assuming the Government is SMART enough to claim threats "thwarted" due to the data. Consider the current "threat" that has caused extended closures of US Embassies overseas. For all we know, it COULD be 3-4 operatives generating massive "chatter" back and forth on a number of methods and media, forcing a reaction. And then, physically doing. . . nothing. Thus calling the usefullness of data acquired by these means into question. Which was the REAL attack, and it looks to be massively successful. . .

  4. Who is being kept safe? by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right across the free world we're told this these giant databases are there to keep us safe.

    The question is more who is being kept safe who. Is the purpose of these databases to protect me or protect the politicians? Is to protect me or big business? Is it to protect my right to process or restrict it?

    In my own country, William Hague said that it was unthinkable that GCHQ would be operating outside of the law. The problem is I don't believe you!

    Practically every time the government has secrecy it abuses that power to its own ends. This is just the nature of power held in secret with a lack of transparency. The entire span of human history shows that kind of power is hugely destructive.

    The cure is worse than the disease here. Honestly, I'd rather have more terrorist attacks that having my privacy systematically shredded for the greater good. All terrorists can ever do is kill people. It takes a government to kill a society.

  5. Re:No Catfood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scary part is that it turned out that the insane conspiracy nutjobs had a more realistic view of the world than you.

  6. DEA already gets the data by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The DEA is getting the data and then falsifying the source of the data. And not telling the court or anyone about it. To protect national security is one thing, but to conduct non-national security operations using the data seems to me to be a blatant violation of the constitution.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:DEA already gets the data by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To protect national security is one thing, but to conduct non-national security operations using the data seems to me to be a blatant violation of the constitution.

      Except that part of the reason for the Bill of Rights is specifically to protect the citizens from having the government infringe on their rights for "national security" reasons. Saying it's for "national security" doesn't make it better, really.

      What the founders feared, what the Bill of Rights was intended to be a protection against, was an oppressive government using its power to subdue people who opposed the government. So the First Amendment is not saying, "You have the freedom to express yourself artistically," so much as, "You have the freedom to speak out *against the government*." The Second Amendment is not saying, "You're allowed to have guns for hunting purposes," as much as, "You have the right to have military weapons *to protect yourself from the government*." And the 4th Amendment was not really focused on preventing overzealous police officers as much as it was about preventing the government from going after dissidents, rifling through their lives, looking for a pretext to arrest them.

      It's really all about protecting people from the danger of a government using "national security" as a pretext for shutting down dissent. This NSA stuff is *exactly* what the founding fathers were worried about.

  7. Re:No Catfood by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scariest part is that most of "insane conspiracy nutjobs" thought the reality was better than it actually was.