Inside the 2013 US Intelligence "Black Budget"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside the 2013 US Intelligence "Black Budget"

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 29, 2013 @11:58AM from the itemized-bill dept.

i_want_you_to_throw_ writes "U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government's top secret budget. The $52.6 billion 'black budget' for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress."

157 of 271 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! Makes you feel like you as an American matter, doesn't it?

Douglas Adams was right. The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
1. Re:Cool by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-29 12:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think the only thing that is "intelligent" about "intelligence agencies" is the way they secure unlimited black box budgets. $60 billion for 100,000 staff is an average of $600k for each staff member. what are they spending it on? contractors i bet.
2. Re:Cool by jythie · 2013-08-29 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
3. Re:Cool by PPH · 2013-08-29 13:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The presidency is like a piano player in a whorehouse. He knows what is going on upstairs, but there's not much he can do about it other than to drown out the sounds.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Cool by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  what are they spending it on?
  I hear these sorts of things are useful, and expensive: KH-11
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
5. Re:Cool by Runaway1956 · 2013-08-29 14:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Drones. That's where the money goes. Drones are expensive. And, the facilities to operate the drones. The military industrial complex, and the components of that complex, sets their own prices. Like the no-bid contracts exposed in the Iraq war, money is no problem. Secret deals are made, complete with kickbacks and campaign donations, and the government pays whatever the contractor says to pay. The people who authorize these expenditures are part of the same group that authorizes expenditures for billion dollar aircraft. Think about that - billion dollar aircraft.
  Alright - maybe I exaggerate the drone cost some, but I am pretty damned serious.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
6. Re:Cool by shentino · 2013-08-29 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Would we agree if we knew what was really going on?
7. Re:Cool by Camael · 2013-08-29 15:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
  I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending.
  
  Jun. 2, 2009
  When U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair met with President Barack Obama in February to discuss a proposed new constellation of multibillion-dollar imaging satellites, the resulting series of conversations was unusual and maybe unprecedented in the country's decades-long history of using orbiting cameras to spy inside foreign borders. ...
  Obama's personal involvement in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress was "very unusual," said a retired intelligence official. U.S. presidents often receive briefings about spy satellite capabilities at times of crisis, the official said, but he did not know of another president being involved in acquisition planning. That is normally left to the intelligence community, which manages construction of spy satellites and operates them through the National Reconnaissance Office. Acquisition proposals are accepted indirectly by presidents when they sign off on their classified budget requests to Congress.
  
  Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.
8. Re:Cool by shadowofwind · 2013-08-29 17:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Though drones don't cost that much, there are other billion dollar aircraft.
  After Obama won in 2008, his administration's spending plans had large increasing drone spending before he even took office.
  The revolving door is another big part of how the system work: retiring colonels have lucrative employment deals lined up with the contractors before they award the contracts. And of course private stock offerings are another mechanism for congressmen. I've been out of the industry for a few years now, and it still makes my blood boil.
9. Re:Cool by shadowofwind · 2013-08-29 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree. As I saw it, the arguments about the Iraq and Afghan wars that were in the press during the Bush administration could be mostly understood as a part of the turf war between the pentagon and the state department.
10. Re:Cool by erikkemperman · 2013-08-29 17:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And it's not just this black budget' either. Google "GOA DOD not auditable" and you'll find that the office of accounting has pretty much zero idea how the Pentagon budget (of some 800 billion at present) is spent.
  See this huff post article for example. Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
  Currently they are promising to be auditable by 2017...
  
  --
  Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
11. Re:Cool by erikkemperman · 2013-08-29 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  Google "GOA DOD not auditable"
  Damn that should have been GAO of course, not GOA.
  
  --
  Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
12. Re:Cool by schnell · 2013-08-29 18:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
  Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this? The POTUS really does hold ultimate power over the Executive Branch of the US Government, which includes the DoD and the DNI agencies. I get that we want to think he doesn't know or that he's just some dupe, but he's not. (It reminds me of how Soviet citizens in the '30s would look at terrible abuses or atrocities - usually specifically approved by Stalin - and often say, "If only Stalin knew!")
  Anyone who has spent much time around the government in DC can tell you that, yes, defense companies and lobbyists wield a lot of influence over the Legislative Branch... but they're not really in charge of the National Security apparatus - the president is. And he's not some patsy. The sad truth about these activities is that he knows about them and he thinks they're OK.
  Maybe he's right that they do actually stop terrorist attacks, maybe he's just letting these programs continue because he doesn't want to look "soft" on terrorism or get blamed if there's another attack. I don't know and neither do you. But either way please don't delude yourself that the POTUS has not 100% approved what the intelligence community's big initiatives and scope of surveillance are.
  
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
13. Re:Cool by betterprimate · 2013-08-29 18:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
  
  I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending.
  Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.
  
  That's President Obama. Now, if you were to quote Senator Obama, your point would be valid. You want to know how much he is a pawn? Military action against Syria will happen between next Saturday night and Tuesday morning. He will take action, as Presidents before him have, while Congress is in recess. He has until the 9th. This will be the main focus of his Presidential Address on Sunday; justifying the legality and U.S. interest in doing so. He'll pull at liberal heart strings.
  This has been planned for the past 15 years now just like the Iraq war was. U.S. and Britain (primarily) won't miss their chance even though there is more evidence to counter the claim Assad used chemical weapons. They're manufacturing evidence.
  The Elites need the Syrian pipeline and this is their chance to take it.
  (Did I mention the U.S. and NATO have been funding the destabilization of Syria for the past four years?)
  Next stop: Iran
14. Re:Cool by BlueStrat · 2013-08-29 19:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This has been planned for the past 15 years now just like the Iraq war was. U.S. and Britain (primarily) won't miss their chance even though there is more evidence to counter the claim Assad used chemical weapons. They're manufacturing evidence.
  The Elites need the Syrian pipeline and this is their chance to take it.
  (Did I mention the U.S. and NATO have been funding the destabilization of Syria for the past four years?)
  Next stop: Iran
  You're close, but think bigger. Much bigger.
  The global interests have decided that it's time for global change. They want the "Age of America" as a top superpower finished and over with. They want a major global power-shift.
  The only way outside of natural disasters/pandemics that major and sudden global changes happen is through world war.
  World War 3 is what is being staged here. Russia has already sent a fleet to the area. Both Russia and China have warned the US not to strike Syria. The US will be facing Russia, China, Iran, and much of the Middle East and others with an over-extended and exhausted US military. The US doesn't come out of that well.
  The US Dollar is about to collapse. They've been running the printing presses at warp speed to maintain a rough status-quo while they make preparations. They see a war as not only the only way, but the preferred way, out of the somewhere-north-of ~$17T debt (that's admitted to), while simultaneously taking the US out of the top-global-superpower club and allowing martial law to be declared in the US and massive domestic political/societal changes made via the barrels of guns.
  Hang on boys and girls.
  Shit's about to get real after Obama strikes Syria.
  I firmly believe it will be the "Archduke Ferdinand" moment that starts a world war and signals the end of the US as a top superpower, and the end of constitutional civil liberties as we've known them for the people in the US.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
15. Re:Cool by Lennie · 2013-08-29 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe he just thinks all the companies provide employment.
  Or maybe his political party wants to secure funding for the next elections.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
16. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Damn that should have been GAO of course, not GOA."
  That explains the hippies in India I got when Googling it.
17. Re:Cool by Deluvianvortex · 2013-08-29 21:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  World War 3 is what is being staged here. Russia has already sent a fleet to the area. Both Russia and China have warned the US not to strike Syria.
  That was not said at all. They cautioned about leaping to conclusions about the nature of the attack and should let the weapons inspectors finish their investigation. They said, literally, "Military strikes could have catastrophic consequences for the entire region." No one said anything about war, except Iran, who no one cares about. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800
18. Re:Cool by KGIII · 2013-08-29 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  The Cold War is long since over, McCarthyism is no longer fashionable, and bad government policy or actions do not automatically equal communism. Communism has a definition. If you learn that definition, it's real definition, you may actually not be so scared of it but I digress and that's not the point. The point is that, no, it's not communism by any stretch of the imagination.
  Anyhow, no, I don't recommend communism as a system of government for anything larger than a tribe. In and of itself it isn't a bad system. Unfortunately it has had its name tarnished by lots of people and governments self-defining themselves as communists when they are nothing even close to communists. Today's seemingly more popular example would be the self-defining libertarians who don't understand the platform, don't even know what libertarianism is, and generally seem to do so because it is no longer fashionable to admit that they're Republican extremists, authoritarians, or extreme right-wing theocrats who believe capitalism is a system of governance.
  But, still, I digress and will assert, again, that this isn't (and I'm not in favor of it either) communism. I can only wonder if your post was an attempt at humor.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
19. Re:Cool by KGIII · 2013-08-29 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this?
  The truth and the short answer:
  Their side is in office.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
20. Re:Cool by dkleinsc · 2013-08-29 23:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
  Actually, they've arguably been unaccountable since about 1935 or so during the run-up to that little problem in Europe and the Pacific. Dwight Eisenhower was warning the country about it back when he was president. There have been numerous documented cases of the DoD and intelligence agencies flat-out lying to presidents and legislators when it suited their interests, and never being called to account for that.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
21. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  What I saw in the House of Commons debate in the UK yesterday was an actual, passionate, multi-sided (not merely two sides) debate, and in the end the government motion advocating for military action before hearing from the UN inspectors was barely defeated. It was a serious grilling of the government, with awesome points and counterpoints throughout. Some government MPs voted against their government, some opposition MPs voted against the opposition's wishes. MPs demanded explanations of what, exactly, the wording of the motion meant. It was a messy and beautiful democratic process to watch regardless of the outcome.
  What I see in the US is everybody awaiting the solitary, closed-door decision of the President, including whether or not to even consult with Congress on the matter. It's sad by comparison.
  Yes, he has a lot of fricking power. For all the "checks and balances" the US system has built-in, they seem to be failing a lot based on a ridiculous amount of deference to whatever decision the POTUS comes to almost on their own. When the POTUS has to show up *in* Congress and the Senate to actually debate and defend their decision *in*person*, and answer questions and criticisms on the spot in the public eye, rather than a bunch of secret back-room closed meetings in the Whitehouse with "house leaders" and a few press conferences, then I'll be convinced they don't have all that much power.
22. Re:Cool by interkin3tic · 2013-08-30 02:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's amazing to me that we voters accept that budgeting needs to be secret for legitimate security purposes. "Oh no! If China knew how much money we're spending on tanks, they'd only have to spend ONE MORE DOLLAR to get an edge on us and take our freedom in a tank war!"
23. Re:Cool by interkin3tic · 2013-08-30 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
  Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this?
  Doesn't seem like anyone is saying the president is POWERLESS, but the thread was about budgeting. The president doesn't write the budget. He's obviously influential through allies in congress and has more leverage to influence it than probably any other single person, but he cannot wave a pen and change it fundamentally without getting congress on his side first.
24. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The Cold War is long since over
  Yes, yes it is.
  
  McCarthyism is no longer fashionable
  Are you sure about that? Try replacing the word Communism with the "equally frightening" terrorism.
25. Re:Cool by jythie · 2013-08-30 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  POTUS holds dejure power, but their defacto power is not really the same. No matter how much power one has on paper, internal diplomacy is usually far more complex and holding on to any real authority requires a complex dance of satisfying entrenched and institutional powers.
26. Re:Cool by umghhh · 2013-08-30 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are forgetting the hookers and the white powder. These things are expensive in quality that is required.
27. Re:Cool by dcw3 · 2013-08-30 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Though drones don't cost that much, there are other billion dollar aircraft.
  Depends which you're talking about. From Wikipedia's Global Hawk page:
  Each aircraft was to cost US$35 million in 2005,[2] but this had risen to $222.7M per aircraft (including development costs) by 2013.
  That's just the build price, sustainment (think parts replacement, supporting staff, etc.) costs a bunch more.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
28. Re:Cool by dcw3 · 2013-08-30 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Knowledge of program costs give you plenty of knowledge about potential capabilities. As much as I dislike the way Congress does things, I'm very comfortable with them keeping this budget to themselves, as long as they're providing sufficient oversight. Don't like who's holding those pursestrings?...vote them out.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
29. Re:Cool by superdave80 · 2013-08-30 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Currently they are promising to be auditable by 2017...
  And when they aren't auditable by that deadline, absolutely nothing will happen. What are they going to do, shut down the military? Fire federal workers in charge of this mess? Ha!
30. Re:Cool by Squidlips · 2013-08-30 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely! Great snarky comment. There are still Obama apologists out there I see!
31. Re:Cool by tqk · 2013-08-30 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention what they paid for the IT guy who walked out the door of those secret, guarded facilities with all the secrets in his pocket.
  Yeah, what was that IT guy doing there allowing such an abysmal internal security regime to continue?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
32. Re:Cool by interkin3tic · 2013-08-30 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Knowledge of program costs give you plenty of knowledge about potential capabilities
  I have absolutely no experience with such things. Could I have an example?
33. Re:Cool by tqk · 2013-08-30 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  An MBA who had a C average in college and ran every business given to him by his daddy into the ground is what anyone thought was a "super genius"?
  Imagine what all those people who supported and voted for him to get there were thinking.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
34. Re:Cool by tibman · 2013-08-30 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say it gives you an estimate about how seriously they are pursuing something. Is the program a joke or something that we need to put resources into countering?
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
35. Re:Cool by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-08-30 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe his political party wants to secure funding for the next elections
  
  Bingo.
Wow... I RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

And saw the American public ripping the big government a new asshole.
Good job peeps. Keep doin gods work.
We could spend this money almost any other way and do much more good.
1. Re:Wow... I RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  We could spend this money almost any other way and do much more good.
  Could, but won't.
2. Re:Wow... I RTFA by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:22 · Score: 2
  
  We'd spend it bailing out corporations or fighting for corporate interests overseas, in another sandlot where we justify our actions with some manufactured humanitarian atrocity.
  And you're still right, because at least with either of those things, the actions are not directly against the population and citizens of this government, itself.
Open Source by chill · 2013-08-29 12:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
1. Re:Open Source by c0lo · 2013-08-29 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
  The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance.
  If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Open Source by tukang · 2013-08-29 12:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "open source" refers to analysis of publicly available information such as news, social media, etc. (https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/analytical/open-source-officer-foreign-media-analyst.html)
3. Re:Open Source by chill · 2013-08-29 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. I was wondering where all the upstream contributions were, or if this was just support licenses for Red Hat and Apache.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
4. Re:Open Source by slick7 · 2013-08-29 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
  If you want to believe their lies, I have have some bottom land for sale along the Mississippi, or how about a bridge in New York City, real cheap, almost nothing.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
5. Re:Open Source by thoth · 2013-08-29 12:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Come on folks... read the damn info. The site says that "open source" data is "publicly available information appearing in print or electronic form". I'm gonna speculate part of the open source budget goes towards the salaries of linguists, computers for translation and the support staff, etc.
  There's also a government website: www.opensource.gov
6. Re:Open Source by Livius · 2013-08-29 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Open source is easy stuff like newspapers from other parts of the world and other forms of public record.
7. Re:Open Source by NotSanguine · 2013-08-29 15:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
  The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance. If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
  IIRC, Open source in this context refers to intelligence gathering from public sources like newspapers and public records and such.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
8. Re:Open Source by jiriki · 2013-08-29 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... it's to easy to monitor all those unencrypted mails and web requests. Therefore the DHS spents money on things like http://polycrypt.net/ . So breaking codes becomes fun again for the NSA
Bomb Syria by bhlowe · 2013-08-29 12:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obama's (and the neocon's) response: bomb a civil war in the Middle East...
1. Re:Bomb Syria by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Obama's (and the neocon's) response: bomb a civil war in the Middle East...
  Just to be clear, are you advocating leaving the Syrian government in peace to use nerve gas on the population at will.... like Saddam was doing to the Kurds? Another Hama is OK? Just asking.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:Bomb Syria by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Funny thing, that.
  When Bush did it, Obama (rightfully) stated "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
  And Biden stated "I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him."
  After the bullshit the government tried to stir up in/over North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, and so on the last few years -- I wondered when these comments were finally going to catch up with them. Tonight, I saw them in The Atlantic, even -- which tells me they are not going to remain forgotten and ignored, except by the politicians, themselves.
  Their statements and positions were right, when they stated them against Bush. They were right when they ran for office on these statements and promises to the American people. They are still the right positions to maintain.
3. Re:Bomb Syria by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:37 · Score: 2
  
  So let's wait for a UN mandate and then act on that. And let's wait until there is verification that this is actually happening. John Kerry said something to the effect of "You can't deny that these horrible atrocities of chemical warfare on their own people are happening -- we have all seen the evidence first hand, on social media".
  Sorry, but youtube is not "witnessing evidence first hand". I saw a video of a man flying with man-made wings, lifting off the ground and high into the air. That didn't mean it wasn't fake (it was fake).
  Let's also not buy into this "it's for humanitarian purposes!' bullshit, so readily. Why does our government care about humanitarian military efforts over 300 dead people when it is in a high-energy resource center, but not when it is hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda, Darfur, and many other places?
  This isn't even a disguised agenda. When Obama hagiographer, Gwen Ifill, interviewed him recently, he stated the following. Notice that he throws absolutely fucking everything but the kitchen sink out there to compel America to throw in on Syria . . . but he very clearly states one of the reasons is to maintain the clear flow of energy through the region. You know, save people from chemical warfare, abuse of women and children, freedom, safety, opposition of authoritarian regimes (hah!) and... energy.
  Obama: And so we don’t have good options, great options, for the region. But what I am clear about is that if the United States stands by its core values and its core interests; if we’re very clear about making sure that we’re stopping terrorist attacks against the United States; if we are very clear about our, you know, commitment to the safety and security of Israel; if we are clear about the free flow of energy throughout the region that affects the entire global economy; but also if we’re clear about our values and that we believe in inclusive governments, that we believe in the protection of minority rights, that we believe in women’s rights, that we believe that over time it’s better for governments to be representative of the will of their people, as opposed to being, you know, dictated to by authoritarian governments; if we are consistent in those principles, then eventually, I think, we’ll be better off. But it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to have some very difficult problems in — in the meantime.
4. Re:Bomb Syria by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Fool me once (Iraq, Afghanistan), shame on - shame on you.
  Fool me (Lybia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and so on down the road) -- you can't get fooled again.
  Except that, clearly, we can.
5. Re:Bomb Syria by tnk1 · 2013-08-29 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is... they have no plans to remove Assad from power. That would almost have a point. They are just going to dump a few hundred cruise missiles in a civil war.
  An action with the desired effect of removing Assad would require us to actually put troops in there, or at least advisers. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything to remove Assad. The resistance might still win, but that wouldn't be us.
  We're just shooting at them because chemical weapons.
6. Re:Bomb Syria by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nerve gas is a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are considered Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is considerable stigma to killing people with them.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Oversight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 12:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

If we are ever going to rein in our out of control government we desperately need to have all the public scrutiny we can get. Maybe even put some penalties up, say your budget gets slashed by a billion dollars every time one of your officials gets caught lying to congress or gets caught up in a scandal.
1. Re:Oversight by jythie · 2013-08-29 13:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I doubt that would actually help much. Look how protective they get over secrets and accountability when the only 'cost' is embarassment. Imagine how much energy they would put in to not being accountable if there were actual penalties.
2. Re:Oversight by Anti-Social+Network · 2013-08-31 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  ...at some point the "cheaper" option becomes "don't do shit that can blow back on the agency." MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
  
  --
  Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
Links to classified data should be labeled by Myria · 2013-08-29 12:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information. Some people can get into trouble for viewing it. I love reading it, but some people who read Slashdot work in the classified world and have to work under some of its sillier rules. (Like having to wipe your unclassified work computer because it got Top Secret data on it from the Washington Post.)

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
1. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2013-08-29 12:22 · Score: 2
  
  That makes sense..... and is truly the most insane thing I have heard this week.
2. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Charliemopps · 2013-08-29 12:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, fuck that. It's our moral responsibility to make sure this shit hits every wall in the room.
3. Re: Links to classified data should be labeled by statusbar · 2013-08-29 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  So if there were an article on a news site about top secret news but it was pretend and wasn't really top secret would you still have to wipe your computer? If yes, then you will be wiping your computer often. If no, then you get acknowledgment if a leak is actually true or not.
  
  --
  ipv6 is my vpn
4. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 12:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information. Some people can get into trouble for viewing it. I love reading it, but some people who read Slashdot work in the classified world and have to work under some of its sillier rules. (Like having to wipe your unclassified work computer because it got Top Secret data on it from the Washington Post.)
  You chose to work for the Devil. It turns out, sometimes the Devil wants his due.
  
  That's your problem. So fucking tired of every edge-case person wanting the whole rest of the world to accommodate them. It's self-important entitlement at its finest.
  
  Here's an idea: don't click on links that talking about US intelligence agencies. Simple!
5. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by bmo · 2013-08-29 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much this.
  Prior restraint is bollocks.
  --
  BMO
6. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  That's not prior restraint, that's information labeling. Prior restraint is when the government says you can't publish it.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
7. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  The automatic filters dont work like that anymore. The first find would be set aside for machine learning and then the search tasks go on as normal.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
8. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-08-29 13:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, fuck that. It's our moral responsibility to make sure this shit hits every wall in the room.
  Right - don't enable the bastards. Does a spook have to spend three days re-installing his PC because some stupid rule says that he has to if he reads a WashPo article? Good, that's three days less that he can be doing other damage.
  Somebody give me a "Top Secret" nugget that's been in the MSM for months so I can I can put in my .sig.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 13:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  From that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 ~"unpleasant content and contradicting facts and opinions" is now just "secret" news.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
10. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by CoolGopher · 2013-08-29 13:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm sorry, but if it's available to all and sundry on the internet, it is no longer secret, let alone Top Secret. The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, the train's left the platform, etc.
  If institutions fail to adapt to the changing world, that's their problem, not the world's.
11. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Isaac+Remuant · 2013-08-29 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  We went over this when wikileaks Material was posted to /.
  It's your responsibility. Not the site's. Otherwise, they'd have to accomodate to every small request.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
12. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by nsaspook · 2013-08-29 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the words "Intelligence Black Budget" didn't clue you in?
  
  --
  In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
13. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Gravis+Zero · 2013-08-29 13:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information.
  yes, that's it, let's have everyone go out of our way to help those poor souls like you that are helping perpetuate the problem. oh wait, here's a better idea, dont work for criminals or companies that help them.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
14. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Runaway1956 · 2013-08-29 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nahhh - some people probably think it's the government's budget for black SUV's. And, that would be "news for nerds" based on all the options and accessories to be found in said black SUV's.
  I saw one not long ago, in Broken Bow, Oklahoma. Damned thing was completely blacked out, violating any and all laws about tinted windshields. There had to be six antenna sticking up out of it, maybe more. I only saw it for a couple seconds, in cross traffic at one of the three red light intersections in town. Wonder what the hell spooks were doing in Broken Bow, Oklahoma? Maybe there was a credible threat to the ancient old cypress tree outside of town or something.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
15. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes contractors selling more kit and overtime to watch over new contractors fixing past contractors work...
  Expect a lot of internal testing, experts, deep staff tracking, random chats with strangers after work about life at bars/gyms/book clubs (fiction only).
  Report any chats you have with strangers, anyone could be a loyalty test.
  Direct and covert offers to 'buy' info on work topics as huge new loyalty budgets spin up.
  If you really want to keep your job, report coworkers reading news aggregation websites :)
  Get in fast before they report you first.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
16. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by EmperorArthur · 2013-08-29 14:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is that the agency responsible for all that shouldn't be the same agency looking at US citizens.
  That's not a moral, or even constitutional issue. It's a management one.
  Go through all this data to do any of the things you refer to above are specific tasks. Things no one has a problem with. The problem comes when the NSA has information overload because every AT&T office in the middle of no where has a tap on it. I hope that last statement was just hyperbole, but you get my point.
  Terrorism is such a nebulous term in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. It's being used to justify huge amounts of departmental overreach. I want the NSA to watch Russia, and Iran, and North Korea. What I don't want is for them to watch everyone at home. Doing so makes as much institutional sense as replacing policemen with soldiers.
  
  --
  So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
17. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-08-29 14:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Like making sure Russia isn't cheating on its ballistic missile treaty obligations? Like looking for North Korea making preparations to launch missiles at Japan? Like Iran assembling a nuclear warhead? I think you have a "funny" idea there, probably more than one.
  Your scare tactics don't work on me - I don't live in fear, and America doesn't work when people do (even Francis Scott Key got that right) . Japan can worry about Japan. Russia isn't planning to bomb the world. Iran hasn't started a war with another country in 150 years. If you're afraid of Iran, you should look at the CIA, which even admitted this week to overthrowing its democracy and installing the government that led directly to the Islamic Revolution and the current clusterfuck of a government they have there.
  America is not the World Police, but the US intelligence agencies do violate our highest laws (and International law) every single day. We need to take care of our internal problems as our primary responsibility.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
18. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 14:52 · Score: 2
  
  Long term the nugget idea is interesting, just keep quoting the info as posted to Slashdot and adding your own insights.
  A lot of staff will for the first time face the reality/limits of their rights and freedoms and wonder about their own internet logs.
  Self censorship takes over and very well educated staff members notes group think setting in.
  Thats why the more successful clandestine services ensure staff read as much as they can and offer to keep their education going.
  Languages, propaganda, protest movements where all once seen as great learning environments.
  So if your good clearance "still" has some "leaked classified information" clause ... where you in the newer uptake?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
19. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  The US press did to with Nixon too. The old trick was to get to the press/publisher/author first. That worked well for many, many years :)
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
20. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 16:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sorry, but it doesn't stop being classified if it is stolen and published. The only way it stops being classified is to be declassified in the usual way. There are lots of reasons for that.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
21. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by b4dc0d3r · 2013-08-29 16:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  if you haven't paid attention to the many other threads, your computer has to be wiped. as a programmer I keep notes and snippets and URLs and all kinds of helpful stuff handy. not to mention the installation and config.
  if I worked on a controlled pc and clicked an interesting link while researching why Md5 is harmful so u can explain why a Microsoft patch disables cert checimg for md5 signatures, I have to start over.
  a controlled computer, without being able to set options like disabling scripts, and likely ie8, on potentially underpowered hardware is a recipe for browser unresponsiveness. I constantly mis- click on android browsers, and dad's ie8 is slower than sloth crap.
  a warning would be helpful, and if you still disagree, you should do all of your computing from a livecd with a 3.5" floppy for storage, to remind yourself what starting over entails.
  assuming that source is controlled, mails are on the server, and your home drive is not local, most people would be down at least a day, best case, and slower than normal for weeks.
22. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 18:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You may not live in fear, but you live in poverty, a poverty of understanding. What I listed isn't scare tactics, but simply issues that have to be faced in the world by the United States. There is no requirement for you to face them, but you shouldn't pretend to understand them when you don't. Trying to pretend that Iran is peaceful when it is one of the key sponsors of terrorism in the world, threatens genocide against Israel, and menaces its neighbors in the region shows you are either badly uninformed, or disingenuous, to be kind. Most of Iran's neighbors are buying large amounts of arms due to Iranian threats. Iraq has been plagued by Iranian agents equipping and training anti-government militias, bribing members of the government, and targeted US and coalition troops trying to restore civil government to Iraq. Iran has been directly linked with terrorist attacks against Americans, including the Beirut bombing that killed 299 American and French soldiers and marines there for peace keeping. Iran has repeatedly threatened to block the Persian Gulf oil routes, a key energy supply for the world, and to cut European petroleum supplies to freeze people in the winter. The "democracy" that you refer to in Iran was gone before the US helped restore the Shah to power. If you trouble yourself to become informed, you will find that the former prime minister had dissolved the legislature, faked an election, was ruling by decree indefinitely, and ignored the last check on his power - the right of a constitutional monarch to dismiss the prime minister. Calling Iran a democracy at the time is a sick joke.
  So you claim, "Russia isn't planning to bomb the world"? Who told you? And why do you believe them? Russia has threatened nuclear weapons strikes against NATO for planning to install a limited missile defense against Iran. They have restarted the former Soviet practice of probing American and NATO nation air defenses with nuclear bombers and submarines. They have engaged in practice nuclear strikes against US bases on Guam. In the 1960s, the Soviet Union (of which Russia was the heart) sought US acquiescence to a nuclear decapitation strike they wished to perform against China. The US said NO. I doubt Russian nuclear strategy is much different. They are probably even more reliant upon nuclear weapons for deterrence since the Russian military is a mere shadow of the Soviet military, and reform is faltering. If you have definite knowledge, perhaps you could share it with the American and European defense community?
  If you want "Japan to worry about Japan," then you should be ready for a nuclear armed Japan, and terrified neighbors. The Japanese have rockets that they regularly use to orbit satellites, including spy satellites. They have a large and highly competent nuclear industry. They could have ICBMs with nuclear warheads very quickly, if they chose to. The North Koreans and Chinese have already given them incentive. Now, just mix in a little "cultural problem" in that many Japanese don't accept responsibility for waging aggressive war in WW2 and still honor the old ways, and the ingredients of trouble are assembled. Add to that the intense resentment held by many of Japans neighbors to its actions in WW2, and the brew is starting. Stir the pot with a growing movement to rewrite the Japanese "peace constitution" to remove its restrictions on using force, and the neighbors start getting nervous. Those nervous neighbors will buy more weapons and may poison the atmosphere with Japan. South Korea might very well arm with nuclear weapons too given a nuclear armed North Korea, China, and Japan. (And a "Japan looks out for Japan" policy that also implies a "South Korea looks out for South Korea.") The South Koreans already have brand new cruise missiles to fit them on. But hey! No worries! It's not like the economies of Japan, South Korea, China, and the US are related in any way, right?
  America may not b
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
23. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by geogob · 2013-08-29 19:43 · Score: 2
  
  No. That's no joke. It's irrelevant from where and how you got the classified documents in your hands. If you are not supposed to have them, you'll can get into a lot of trouble. The only way out of bigger trouble is most likely to fill an incident report, which will, i guess, ruin your day, your work and your computer. Possibly your private stuff as well back home.
24. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by rts008 · 2013-08-29 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why should we take responsibility for your choices and actions?
  If you work with classified info, then you should know better than to let your curiosity rule over responsibility. 'Do you know how curiosity killed the cat?'
  Not all of us are molded to think this way. Some of us prefer a more open and honest government that is truly ' by the people, for the people', as advertised!
  I your case(and those similar/applicable), I will concede that the above was a bit harsh. I meant no insult...consider it a warning. (Hint: "Ignore the man behind the curtain."
  Save the defensive arguments you may intend to reply with for Rosa Parks....in the alleged afterlife.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
25. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by rts008 · 2013-08-29 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are lots of reasons for that.
  
  Are any of those reasons valid after they have been uploaded and spread around the internet?
  It HAS to be about retribution, and not secrecy. IT'S ON THE FRIKKING INTERNET ALREADY!!!
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
26. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by rts008 · 2013-08-29 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hi from Stillwater!
  Don't bet the farm on a Fed vehicle, the description sounds like our own Tri-County Task Force, made up of all local law enforcement agencies.
  There has been on ongoing trend in civil law enforcement to become more 'militarized' since 9/11 in the USA.
  It's starting to remind me of the rise of Nazi Germany. Not total, but just starting....
  Before you jump to conclusions, check it out.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
27. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by rastos1 · 2013-08-29 21:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I did notice your name on several interesting posts during last 2 weeks, but this time I'm not so sure that you are right.
  When talking how Iran menaces it's neighbors it reminds me of this picture. If you say that that Iran threatens the world supply of oil by blocking the Persian Gulf - yes, they do. Does that mean that you can force them to give up their right to control their territorial waters? Do you have some god-given right to that oil or what? Yes, it would cause troubles world wide if they did that. So we just march in and take over the oil reserves? If you say they were involved with Beirut bombing - that was 30 years ago. Move on. There is no point in bringing up that stuff again again - apart from learning from past mistakes. If you describe what USSR/Russia did 50 years ago ... the politicians as well as foreign politics of both USSR and USA changed a lot since that time. When the ballistic rockets start flying, they will fly over my head, not yours - because I live in central Europe. If Russia decides to take out the radar control stations that give information to US rockets, they will hit my country, not yours. Americans seem to be keen on going into military actions around the world - because it is happening far away from them. It is easy to order military strikes when you do that with remote control and drones. When all you see is the footage on CNN. Russia isn't positioning military bases outside of their territory - USA does that. And everybody caves in because of USA power. You are becoming a bully.
  America may not be the "World Police," but America has interests around the world. Sure. I'm interested in living like a millionaire sipping mojito on a beach. Does not give me right to force someone to give me their stuff and land.
  Don't be mistaken. I'm not supporting Russia/Putin and I'm not supporting Iran developing nuclear weapons nor Syria using chemical weapons. I'm just much closer to the scene and I don't see the world powers trying to resolve the situation with minimum required force.
28. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Charliemopps · 2013-08-29 23:23 · Score: 2
  
  Don't surf the internet from your spy computer. Problem solved.
29. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by drinkypoo · 2013-08-30 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  a warning would be helpful, and if you still disagree, you should do all of your computing from a livecd with a 3.5" floppy for storage, to remind yourself what starting over entails.
  Well, no. My computing does not involve violating the constitution all day, every day. If you work for the federal government on secret information, then yours probably does.
  I hope that you see so much classified information that you can never work again until you quit and go to work for someone more reputable.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-30 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  And those reasons are "stupid old rules that have taken too long to change."
  If they don't want to call it "declassified" because technically it's not, then call it "leaked" and treat it the same as declassified.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
31. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by NoImNotNineVolt · 2013-08-30 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  The law is the law. If someone jumps out of a plane without a parachute, you still get charged with murder if you stab them to death before they hit the ground, despite the fact that "THEY WERE GONNA DIE ANYWAY!!!".
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
32. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-30 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's typical intelligence agency / law enforcement thinking, the status quo makes my job not as easy as it could be so the rest of the world should change and sacrifice for us.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
33. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by NoImNotNineVolt · 2013-08-30 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, let's fuck over all the researchers at NASA, the DoE, and countless other research agencies that are funded by the government and filled with cleared employees. Yes, NASA researchers are criminals.
  
  Fucking idiots. The comments about this article are written by fucking idiots.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
34. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by bmo · 2013-08-30 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  "I have to start over."
  Boo fucking hoo. Use a virtual machine, numbnuts.
  Restore "safe" image and you're done.
  --
  BMO
35. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Whorhay · 2013-08-30 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  And it's not even that small of an issue. Any government computer that has accessed classified information in the wild has to be wiped, whether or not it is used by someone with a clearance of any type. And it's not actually about containing the spread of the information that has already been leaked. It is about ensuring that the people using those computers haven't created a spillage of their own. Every bit of classified information in government systems is supposed to be tracked and traceable. That is easiest to do when contamination from one system on another is cleared up rapidly.
36. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by Deflagro · 2013-08-30 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's all about the red tape. The gov't is run like a corporation and I'm sure all the red tape is causing the huge amounts of financial bloat. You probably need to get a proposal of your TPS report cover sheet approved by a board before it goes into draft and another round of proposals just so it can be added to a report that will have lost all relevance and only cost taxpayers 100 million dollars.
  I'm sure there's some ego to it too.
  "It's not declassified until I say it is!"
  "B..b..but sir, everyone has a copy of this. There are billions of these in the wild"
  "What did I just say?!"
  
  --
  Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
37. Re:Links to classified data should be labeled by bmo · 2013-08-30 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Then if it's that inconvenient, we should all put "classified" information on our websites.
  Make it inconvenient as hell for everyone in TLAs, because honestly, they've been cramping *our* style through intimidation and self-censorship because of the "gotta catch 'em all" archiving of everything that flies through the aether and fiber.
  --
  BMO
Different "open source" by Mr.+Underbridge · 2013-08-29 12:29 · Score: 2

I couldn't find that in the text. However, that likely doesn't mean "open source" as in software. It means "open source", as in, the source of info is, well, open. Think things like broadcasts, newspapers, slashdot...
Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-08-29 12:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

$52 billion? That's like burning up a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet every year.
With that amount of money spent, there shouldn't a terrorist left breathing on the face of the planet.
Um, Secret Squirrel guys, I think that you are doing something completely wrong with that money. I know that you like listening to other folks telephone calls, but clearly, this isn't the way.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by Charliemopps · 2013-08-29 12:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah, I see you're mistake. This budget has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists. As with all government programs its primary goal is in justifying its own existence.
2. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by whoever57 · 2013-08-29 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Um, Secret Squirrel guys, I think that you are doing something completely wrong with that money.
  Perfectly reasonable statement, but wrong. The goals of the program are being well met -- it's just that you misunderstand the goal, which is really to funnel money into the privatized defence/intelligence community.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
3. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by dbIII · 2013-08-29 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  Don't be so hard on them, they predicted that the USSR was going to break up - oh wait, they didn't - despite more than half the Russian civilians on the street knowing it was going on. Arab spring? Not as such. Planes crashing into buildings? No, that was Tom Clancy and the writers for the Lone Gunman series.
  OK then, be hard on them. Kick the toy soldiers out and replace them with real ones. Nowhere near as many will be needed and the outsourced money funnels will be removed.
4. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 14:00 · Score: 2
  
  The budget is for intelligence, of which terrorism is just one slice. Other slices keep track of the ballistic missile and nuclear programs of Iran and North Korean. Another slice keeps tabs of Russia to check and see if it is cheating on its nuclear missile and conventional forces treaty obligations. Another slice is watching Russian submarines and bombers as they have restarted their probes of NATO and US/Canadian territory. Another slice is watching China and its occupation of territory claimed by India, and naval encroachments on many of its neighbors, including Japan and the Philippines. Another slice is tracking developments in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and many other places. Another part is probably watching the rise of fascist parties in various parts of Europe, such as Greece, Russia, and other countries. Another slice is watching Columbian drug cartels and their drug smuggling submarines, and the threat the cartels pose to the central government. Yet another slice is probably watching Iran's activities in Central America where they are allying with various terrorist groups and governments that consider themselves adversaries of the US. Another slice is watching arms shipments around the world, such as North Korea to Iran. Another slice is engaged in countering nuclear weapons proliferation. There are also exchanges with allies, both enduring and episodic, in which the US provides data to stop terrorism or aggression. There is way more to watch than that, lots of infrastructure to build and maintain, satellites to launch and monitor, data to process and analyze. Hopefully they'll be able to prevent a new Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and generally help to maintain as much peace in the world as possible.
  If you think the intelligence agencies have to justify their own existence, you're kidding yourself.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
5. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by Livius · 2013-08-29 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose is to have an impressive-looking budget to create the *appearance* of Doing Something(tm).
  They achieve that more effectively by not spending the money sensibly.
6. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 14:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Re maintain as much peace in the world as possible?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
  Much of that seems to been keeping the world in a mess so it needs US help/arms and political cover/support.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
7. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  -- it's just that you misunderstand the goal, which is really to funnel money into the privatized defence/intelligence community.
  If you think that is the goal then it is possible there is more than one thing to misunderstand.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
8. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by khallow · 2013-08-29 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  With that amount of money spent, there shouldn't a terrorist left breathing on the face of the planet.
  That's crazy talk. If they did that, then how would they get $52 billion next year? The US government is a place where one gets paid generously to not do their job.
9. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by gagol · 2013-08-29 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  Here is the goal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions, and its not democracy, quite the contrary.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
10. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by gagol · 2013-08-29 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason the US financial system is still operational, is because china have big interest in wall street. The day it stop serving them, you can bet on a huge financial crisis live you never saw before. Welcome to war 2.0.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
11. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by gagol · 2013-08-29 17:17 · Score: 2
  
  The irony of it all: the power of china comes from the greed of western capitalists.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
12. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Probably part of the elite cabal of sex trafficking that is so popular among European politicians and aristocrats. The top freaks in power in America want to get in on some of that.
13. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by dbIII · 2013-08-29 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? It was well known the USSR couldn't keep up the level of spending
  It wasn't well known in the "intelligence community", they were waiting for the non-existent ace in the hole to come out and were utterly dumbfounded when it didn't. Their paranoia had them living in a fantasy world where the decades long economic problems of the USSR were "just what they want us to think".
  That's why I've listed that as a truly "epic fail". Too much SIGINT and not enough HUMINT meant a major divergence from reality.
14. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by erikkemperman · 2013-08-29 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying... It's not all bad? Please.
  You zoom in on Iran, conveniently glossing over the huge list of entirely uncontroversial examples of US-backed overthrows of democratically elected regimes (*).
  But you fail to notice -- or just pretend to -- that the inked article does not mention the 1979 Islamic revolution which is what you discuss. I think you've got that wrong too, but let's put that aside. The article discusses the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1953, and includes this gem:
  
  In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup
  (*) This list should of course really be complemented by a list of US-backed dictators, to paint a more complete picture of US dedication to "spreading democracy".
  
  --
  Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
15. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by dunkelfalke · 2013-08-29 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, USSR could have been around for a while longer, but then Chernobyl happened and the cleanup cost was almost as high as the yearly military budget.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
16. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by dbIII · 2013-08-30 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  They were screwed well before then.
17. Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. by Khashishi · 2013-08-30 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Considering how many governments we've toppled, $58B/year isn't that bad.
Too much secrecy, not too little, is the problem by InterGuru · 2013-08-29 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thought experiment: What if just before we went into Vietnam and Iraq, someone leaked all our intelligence about these countries. There is a good chance the outcry would have stopped these stupid/criminal wars.
What is new by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 13:02 · Score: 1

Agent recruiting - this was exposed in the Church reports wrt to US press/universities and their very close role to the US gov.
Spending has been sort of public but out by 50% seems too low?
Offensive cyber-operations - very public in many comments about direction changes and new missions, recruiting needs.
Insider threats - that is interesting. All the new contractors and rushed language needs add up to people with pasts and family connections/faith well outside the USA.
The "anomalous behaviour" has been in the US press and the FBI/task forces really did try on that but little was done.
The China, Russia... spy back list would be well understood by many over the years.
One-third of all spending going on a tactic is amazing in its mission creep/dreamy contractor wealth. Considering the US faces real nations with real tech/people/charm/skills.
Seems the Iran, China and Russia and North Korea get a feeling they are under constant electronic supervision, keep to ~"one time pads" and keep the chatter down? Back to the 1950's vs the floods of later cold war data?
Lethal strikes - the press is understanding the double tap drone strikes, locals using tracking devices for US pay.
Master such complexity? The US needs human spies "again", ie DIA/CIA and so many others will get the budgets. So many issues? The US faces a tactic/nations with people who know not generate masses of easy to collect data.
The "structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy" - the press, past authors and researchers seem to have been doing fine work.
To see any comment on the National Reconnaissance Office is very different.
The CIA’s dominant position/paramilitary role is news? The NSA got extra cash and listened much 'more'.
The internal “moderate progress” comment is interesting. Night raids, drone strikes, informants and gathering information will "hold" any war with endless funding...
"Large protests" seems to hint at ever more US funded NGO and colour revolution efforts, 20 somethings with banners, stickers, web 2.0 skills .... waiting for that great optics moment when some regime uncovers their funding connections.
"Russian chemical warfare countermeasures" handing lots of cash to skilled Russians is not working?
The great news for the US is the research projects hint- thats at lot of cash flowing within the US for ~math, ~science ~language grads.
Long term the world seems to understand they are all on ENIGMA like units and their communications might want to take on a more imaginative role?
Will the question of who allowed the "applicants and contractors" vetting to become an issue be tracked back to the policy or just fixed?
Someone allowed the US to change its very good vetting...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Well it's "only" 50 billion by djupedal · 2013-08-29 13:04 · Score: 1

I mean, that's about 5x the revenue of the entire NFL, so it must be at least 5x as important.
At least they're both non-profits....
May well be the Most Transparent Administration... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 13:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

...thanks to Edward Snowden.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by PPH · 2013-08-29 13:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Iraq and Vietnam were different cases. In Iraq, the evidence was manufactured at the outset to get us in there. In Vietnam, it was a misunderstanding of the internal politics (a civil war) plus lies later on about how badly things were going.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
My favorite part by Antipater · 2013-08-29 13:14 · Score: 5, Funny

I loved when Clapper tried to minimize the number by saying that it accounts for "less than 1% of GDP". Not 1% of government revenues, not 1% of the government's total budget. 1% of fucking GDP is his chosen comparison. That's like someone claiming they're not an alcoholic because they only drink one bottle a day, and Jack Daniels makes thousands!

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
1. Re:My favorite part by notanalien_justgreen · 2013-08-29 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, especially when NASA's budget is ~0.1% of GDP. We bitch about NASA's inability to get anywhere these days, but here the NSA is blowing far more money doing far far less. I hope the Republicans can finally jump on this bandwagon now that the issue can be framed as "government waste" instead of "protection from terrorists". It amazes me that conservatives have given Obama such a free pass on all of this so far. Hopefully that changes now.
2. Re:My favorite part by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes we have seen that "chosen comparison" like idea used on Slashdot. If you forget data compression and keep raw footage/recodings no real data can be stored for very long.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:My favorite part by causality · 2013-08-29 13:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It amazes me that conservatives have given Obama such a free pass on all of this so far. Hopefully that changes now.
  It amazes me how you or anyone else can see this happen time and time again and still believe that we have two distinct parties.
  
  Jefferson knew what a two-party system would become and specifically warned against it. At some point they both realize they can play the voters in the middle, sort of like "good cop, bad cop". For maximum effect, switch roles once in a while. Then people support a given one for irrational, emotional, tribal, "my team" reasons and stop thinking critically. Take a hard look at the world of US politics and tell me this isn't exactly what's happening. Then make the next tiny leap and understand that someone definitely benefits from this, and it is not accidental.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
4. Re:My favorite part by Antipater · 2013-08-29 18:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Being mathematically accurate does not mean that it's a reasonable metric. GDP is not a measure of government spending. Comparing a subset of government spending to a measure of something other than government spending is meaningless without prior knowledge of other facts, like the ratio of total government spending to GDP, for example. It's comparing apples to bushels: you have to know how many apples in a bushel before the comparison makes any sense. That makes it unreasonable.
  In addition, there's no possible reason for Clapper to be using that specific metric, even if it were reasonable. The argument can be made that comparing entitlement and defense spending to GDP can be informative, because those two subsets of spending can be used as proxies for, respectively, the income of a certain population subset and the health of a manufacturing industry subset. But unless you're suggesting that the intelligence community represents an important share either of the population or of industry, then comparing its budget to GDP is not informative. It's simply being used as a tool to lower people's perception of the amount of money being spent. It's a comparison made to obfuscase, not to inform. That makes it laughable.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
5. Re:My favorite part by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-30 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I hope the Republicans can finally jump on this bandwagon now that the issue can be framed as "government waste" instead of "protection from terrorists".
  Hahaha no, if it's protection from terrorists it can't be government waste!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6. Re:My favorite part by jfengel · 2013-08-30 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's unreasonable. Government spending is in a sense an arbitrary number. About half of the budget is money that comes in one door and out the other; they're wealth transfer programs rather than actual "spending". Such programs could, if we wished, be many times GDP. It's a bit like basing a bank's value based on the size of its deposits, even though every dollar on deposit is also a dollar that they owe. I'm not taking a stand on the programs one way or another, simply pointing out that the size of the budget isn't an easy number to interpret for comparison purposes.
  The GDP, on the other hand, more or less corresponds to something real: how much the nation produces. There are numerous ways in which the calculation is flawed, and that number too is most effective only when compared to historical data. But in this case, it's a not-completely-insane way to say, "This is how much the nation makes, and this is what fraction we spend on protecting that earning capacity via intelligence services."
  It would also be meaningful to compare to real government spending (as opposed to the government's supervision of transfer payments). But that number is roughly proportional to GDP, since it effectively takes a fraction of GDP in taxes. So it's another way of saying the same thing.
  You can certainly dispute whether that amount is still too much, or whether the amount is being spent well in pursuit of that protecting-the-rest-of-our-earnings goal. But I don't think it's meaningless to compare the two numbers.
intelligence-gathering collosus by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 13:34 · Score: 1

that was unable to detect a couple young known terrorists from detonating explosives at the Boston Marathon.
Epic. Fail.
1. Re:intelligence-gathering collosus by gagol · 2013-08-29 17:28 · Score: 2
  
  Since 9/11, most of the "terror" acts the FBI have avoided, was their own sting operations. Cant fight a war when you have no enemies, eh?
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
2. Re:intelligence-gathering collosus by Deflagro · 2013-08-30 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  It is funny how most of these "terror" events seem to happen at the same time or around the same time as simulations of the exact same events. 9/11, boston, sandy hook, etc...
  Maybe they have the right idea but their timing stinks? Definitely better ways to spend billions of dollars.
  
  --
  Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Re:Mod This Bullshit To Oblivion by Sperbels · 2013-08-29 13:56 · Score: 2

But if it were Bush's idea...they'd love it.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by Livius · 2013-08-29 14:04 · Score: 1

Not identical, but not that different either.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by AHuxley · 2013-08-29 14:06 · Score: 1

Re: against it's citizens and spying on citizens?
Most countries have a file or team working on that tricky problem. What to do when the war toll, contractor prices, taxes and safe jobs get out of sync and real people fill the streets of a few cities in protest.
What can be done? Print more cash and offer big jumps to wage, stock and pension plans?
Celebrity fun? A calming national event?
Fine contractors and expose their political friends?
Ask the special forces and the trusted military if they have any small tanks in the area to clear the streets with?
Ask the clandestine services just how many of the "protesters" are really informants?

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by Runaway1956 · 2013-08-29 14:30 · Score: 5, Informative

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=vietnam+CIA+false+flag+
Like Iraq, Vietnam was also based on manufactured false information. You may limit your reading to the wikis, or you may dig deeper, as you wish. But, Tonkin Bay, which was the primary igniter in getting our troops into Vietnam was entirely a false flag operation.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Not a joke. Publication != declassification by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 15:11 · Score: 1

Strange rule, but true.
Re:May well be the Most Transparent Administration by b4upoo · 2013-08-29 15:22 · Score: 1

The public needs to know about these budgets. Now we have no way to know the growth rate of this budget over the years and we have no real way to know if these agencies get enough money or too much money. So what good is a vote? One can not vote with any clarity when important information is held back.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 15:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

you're completely wrong about Vietnam.
Vietnam started at the request of France. They wanted the US military to help back them up in Vietnam because they were losing control of it [Vietnam being a colony of France at the time]. France turned the revolution in Vietnam into a civil war, with the revolutionaries turning into the VC and the other side becoming our guys. The US was pulled wholesale into the conflict by the NSA and the Johnson administration distorting information around the gulf of tonkin incident.
We started in Vietnam to support France's colonial interests, and went all in because the administration of the time faked intelligence. There was absolutely no misunderstanding of vietnam's internal politics.
Sweet Quote by dcollins · 2013-08-29 15:51 · Score: 2

"To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community." (p. 5)

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston by msobkow · 2013-08-29 16:09 · Score: 2

Over 50 BILLION dollars and they didn't catch and stop the Boston bombers.
<SARCASM>What a great investment.</SARCASM>
It makes it worth every penny to spy on the whole nation and surrounding world, doesn't it?

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston by Seumas · 2013-08-29 17:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, but they *did* convince people that they were "being rescued" by the end of an assault rifle barrel when being forced to stay in their homes and then forced at gunpoint to get out of their homes for mandatory searches.
2. Re:Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston by thoth · 2013-08-30 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Over 50 BILLION dollars and they didn't catch and stop the Boston bombers.
  It's easy to be a critic.
  If they had stopped the bombers before they detonated the bombs, you'd claim a conspiracy or coverup meant to scare the public and gain sympathy (e.g. recent embassy closures), plus accuse them of spying on domestic targets.
  The FBI is the agency for this situation and they aren't getting the entirety of the 50 billion.
3. Re:Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-30 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  And they were saying things all over social networking that should have been picked up by the NSA's all-seeing eye.
  Also the underwear bomber was thwarted only by his own incompetence at building bombs, after his own father warned the US about him.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
4. Re:Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston by mu51c10rd · 2013-08-30 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Correction...
  Domestic operations used to be the domain of the FBI which is not covered under the "Black Budget".
Re:May well be the Most Transparent Administration by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 16:27 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it is mainly the wrong part of government that is "transparent." The culture of corruption continues.
The Summer of Corruption: The Plot Thickens
Obama’s Green Favor-Trading
The well runs deep.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Enhance Cybersecurity by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-08-29 17:27 · Score: 1

A funny pie chart on page 8. 8% of the budget is dedicated to "Enhance Cybersecurity". That is, ~$4.16 Billion is spent just on *enhancing* cybersecurity (yea, maybe it's actually all the money spent on the subject and the title is misleading/wrong). To put that in perspective, that's enough to hire 41,600* $100,000 programmers on the task of fixing open source software . Imagine what that'd do for enhancing cyber security.
*A figure close to ~1.7x how many people worked at Google in 2010. Yes, a lot of people at Google aren't programmers and their top programmers/engineers/whatever may well earn over $100,000/year on average, but it does give you a ballpark idea on the scope of the potential.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
"Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player!" by rts008 · 2013-08-29 20:03 · Score: 2

Outstanding! LOL
I have to say, that's the best analogy I've ever heard on this subject.
On the surface it seems so simple, but the subtle implications are truly astounding.

He knows what is going on upstairs, ...

And nobody talks about what is going on in the basement....$52.6 bn USD worth of something.
Those that break that rule usually have to flee the country.
That from a country allegedly ruled 'by the people, for the people'.
What people? Not me!
Bin Laden won a decade ago.
It strikes me as ironic that we kill him just before public awareness that we lost has just started sinking in slowly to the masses.
Well done, PPH...Very well done.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
1. Re:"Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player!" by rts008 · 2013-08-29 21:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I know.
  The US and UK have been mucking about in the whole of the Middle East since 1945.
  We have caused most of our problems there.
  We are to blame for Osama Bin Ladin. That's what struck me as ironic.
  It's like Frankenstein's Monster run amok over there.
  I'm not a christian, but this seems appropriate here:
  "Yea shall reap what yea sow." Or, something of that nature.
  That was my point...why do we have to impose our way of life on the unwilling? Just for cheap oil?
  That's obscene.
  We already know (for decades) that it would end.
  At the expense of 'next quarter profits' MBA mentality, we have fallen into our own trap.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
2. Re:"Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player!" by KGIII · 2013-08-29 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  We've been mucking about in the Middle East longer than that I'm afraid. *sighs* If you exclude the US it goes as far back as the Crusades. However, check what happened to the whole area after WWI and then under the direction of the League of Nations (which the US didn't join, we weren't wanting to police the planet back then - I'm not sure what happened to change the mentality honestly except maybe the Cold War happened but that's a rather generic statement and I can't pin it down to a specific turning point so I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the subject).
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by rts008 · 2013-08-29 21:11 · Score: 1

Well, I beg to differ.
A lot of the reason we ended up in Vietnam, was our perceptions of alliance treaties with France, and a 'we gotta stop the red tide at any costs!' mentality against 'communism'.
Iraq, well, we should not of went there for the reasons stated.
Why did we not go there when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? (see:current US position on Syria)
We are still engaged in two wars(decade+, over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!), and want to engage in a third?!?!!?? WTF?!

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Fuck that. by pabs3 · 2013-08-29 22:00 · Score: 2

Fuck that, people who work in the classified world should just quit their jobs. Who's side are you on?
https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-eleanor-saitta-dymaxion/
Re:Failure of will by 3.5+stripes · 2013-08-29 22:19 · Score: 1

You're awful dumb, and anyone who thinks that the problem is Islam hops right on that awfully dumb bandwagon right next to you.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The $52.6 billion 'black budget' for fiscal 2013 by MRe_nl · 2013-08-30 00:32 · Score: 1

That's equal to the TOTAL nominal GDP 2012 of Africa's 20 (!) poorest countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
This is a criminal enterprise the size of which the world has seldom witnessed.
I myself have trouble making that kind of turnover every year.
I applaud the scope as I bemoan the consequences.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:Mod This Bullshit To Oblivion by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-30 01:06 · Score: 1

John McCain? I'd say he's a neocon and prominent.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Still think Snowden was not a traitor? by kcorey · 2013-08-30 04:40 · Score: 1

The damage was done by the inexcusable criminals who: 1) ordered the breaking of the constitution 2) started the killing spree known as the "war on terror" 3) the spending of $56.1 billion PER YEAR to disrupt, what, 50 terrorist events across the last decade?
All I have to say is that sad little people like you who want to punish Snowden are getting the government you are paying for.
You know what's even worse? The terrorists are winning.
The American government has thrown away the constitution. Arguably the main thing that made America worth having in the first place.
The criminals are spending the government into the ground. At some point, the rest of the world is going to say "Hey, I'm not loaning you any more money. You're on your own."
Bottom line? The terrorists made /Americans/ and the US government crazy enough for them to tear their own country apart! It will take time, but think about what's happening out there.
Al Quaeda has lost /maybe/ 1000 people.
America has lost its soul, and is toppling in slow motion.
Blaming Snowden or any other whistleblower is simply the criminals trying to make sure the mob kills the wrong people.
Re:For example by dkleinsc · 2013-08-30 05:31 · Score: 1

Not just him, especially if you throw in the FBI since they are sort of part of the "intelligence community" even though they're DoJ instead of DoD. Some of the members of that wall of shame include: J Edgar Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, Robert McNamara, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Leon Panetta, Condaleeza Rice, and yes, Richard Clapper.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble by PPH · 2013-08-30 08:13 · Score: 1

Right. But then Kennedy started to see the light. The Communist vs Democracy conflict was a by-product of who was supporting which side. The underlying conflict was a civil war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was played up to escalate the war, not start it.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
These are just the visible amounts too by trevelyon · 2013-08-30 09:05 · Score: 1

These are staggering amounts for being just the tip of the iceberg. Remember that many other companies are forced to provide access and tapping resources out of their pocket. This is passed onto the consumer as more charges. All the major ISPs, Mobile phone companies, many email hosting providers, etc, etc, etc all have to provide facilities, data storage and other resources to comply with "lawful interception" requirements. These costs add up and are not insignificant but you have to do them or the government will shut you down. BTW, this was happening in Europe more than 10 years ago and things are only ramping up. I can only imagine with systems like carnivore and the sealed requirements how much this is costing US companies (and therefore us customers). It might even rival or surpass the 56 billion figure by the time you tally up all the company costs.