Slashdot Mirror


Government To Release Hundreds of Documents On NSA Spying

Trailrunner7 writes "In response to a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Department of Justice is preparing to release a trove of documents related to the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The declassified documents will include previously secret opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The decision by the Justice Department to release the documents is the second legal victory in recent weeks for the EFF related to the National Security Agency's intelligence collection programs. In August, the group won the release of a 2011 FISC opinion that revealed that the court ruled that some of the NSA's collection programs were illegal and unconstitutional. The newest decision will result in the release of hundreds of pages of documents related to the way the government has been interpreting Section 215, which is the measure upon which some of the NSA's surveillance programs are based. In a status report released Wednesday regarding the EFF's suit against the Department of Justice, attorneys for the government said that they will release the documents by Sept. 10."

123 comments

  1. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is a lot of [REDACTED]s.

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      to the extent that the remaining text is pointless. That's the point.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can probably release faster if their printers not constantly out of toners printing all black pages.

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time to buy stock in sharpie

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! You beat me to it! I was going to say: How much will be redacted?^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mcensored^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mblotted out?
      You will get all the documents you want, but not all the information you want. Technically all the words are still there, but some of them have nice pieces of black blocks over them.

    5. Re:Wow by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I am picturing sheets of black tape covered pages with enlightening words like "The" and "And" clearly visible.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Wow by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      to the extent that the remaining text is pointless.

      1. Determine font face, size and kerning
      2. For each redacted blank, determine which English word relevant to context would fit the space

      How about a Gutenberg-style distributed proofreading endeavour?

  2. It's the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they won't hold back on the dodgy stuff. I trust them!

    1. Re:It's the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah these motherfuckers lied to the congress, what makes us think they won't lie to everyone else?

    2. Re:It's the law! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      The check is in the mail.
      It's only a cold sore.
      I won't cum in your mouth.
      Really - this is ALL we at the NSA are up to.

    3. Re:It's the law! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google yourself the term "Limited Hangout".

      It was certain they'd do this, the same second that Snowden hit the wires.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:It's the law! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Google yourself the term "Limited Hangout".

      It was certain they'd do this, the same second that Snowden hit the wires.

      Released hundreds, millions under wraps.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:It's the law! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      If you do switch those up you might get arrested!

      Put the first and second parts of each one on index cards and switch them for endless fun!

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    6. Re:It's the law! by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      http://www.worldsgreatestpartygame.com/

      Adult Madlibs - I am not affiliated

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  3. Yeah, that's the ticket by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Drown 'em in paperwork. That'll keep 'em busy for a few years. In the meantime business is just humming right along.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Drown 'em in paperwork.

      No, that's not it at all.
      EFF has to battle in court to receive secret interpretation of the law. That's not "paperwork", that's the law itself.

    2. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With that comes much needed law reform and an amazing rediscovery of the Fourth Amendment.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not drowning them in paperwork, because the army of people pouring through the documents as they are released will alert the EFF of anything that looks funny... The power of crowd sourcing caused solely by the importance of the issue.

      The problem will be redaction and if we can trust these documents will be the real ones.

    4. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drown 'em in paperwork. That'll keep 'em busy for a few years. In the meantime business is just humming right along.

      Dear Mr./Mrs. Concerned Citizen,

              This is your [EXPLETIVE] job. If you rely on others regurgitating things to you in how-to-think chunks, take the concerned look off your face, you are a fraud.

      P.S.
      Same advice I would have given politicians yammering about having to read the Affordable Care Act.

    5. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drown 'em in paperwork.

      No, that's not it at all.

      EFF has to battle in court to receive secret interpretation of the law. That's not "paperwork", that's the law itself.

      ... do ALL interpretations of laws have to be PUBLIC? Should all lawyers start blogging the advice they give their clients? Or should it only apply to judges? Does it apply in certain cases, or all of them like a judge talking about law over lunch?

    6. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do ALL interpretations of laws have to be PUBLIC?

      You bet. If the practical interpretations are not public, how do you know if you're about to cross that line?

      Fuck Secrets, and Fuck People who think Secrets are necessary.

    7. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Drown 'em in paperwork.

      Hang 'em with hemp (rope).

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    8. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Informative

      News flash: Court decisions that have the force of law are NOT covered in any size, shape, or form by attorney-client privilege. Stop making an ass of yourself.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      Yep. Otherwise you might as well be dealing with the Pirahna Brothers.

      "I had transgressed the unwritten law!"

      "And what was that?"

      "I don't know. He wouldn't tell me. "

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    10. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by gVibe · · Score: 1

      Yes. And all lawyers should be put to death for no good reason. Charge me $100K to write a letter, I'll show you.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
    11. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the other agencies involved in when it comes to spying? I doubt that you or many people actually believe the NSA is the only one. I would lean towards the NSA begin a filtering point, or a sacrificial lamb to keep everyone from knowing how deep this whole spying game really is.

      And do you really think the NSA is going to release "documents" on its spying programs? It is pretty obvious they are going to release what the general public, media/press has already known.

      The EFF has done nothing, to be honest it is getting really old the lack of effort of the EFF to report this stuff long before someone else leaks it, the only time anyone does anything (and not even then) is after is becomes a media circus, do they throw there hands in the air and say "oh my god, we should do something",

      a day late, and a dollar short..

    12. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... do ALL interpretations of laws have to be PUBLIC? Should all lawyers start blogging the advice they give their clients? Or should it only apply to judges? Does it apply in certain cases, or all of them like a judge talking about law over lunch?

      Yes. Or rather, "case law is a bad system".

      It should NEVER be unclear for a citizen what is legal or illegal in any situation.

      The existence of layers is a symptom of a problem with the legal system. It indicates that the law is obscure to a point where it requires an expert to figure out what you should do. If that is the case you can't expect regular citizens to be able to follow the law. If you can't expect regular citizens to follow the law.. well, then everyone is a criminal so you don't really need to law anymore.

      Not only should all interpretations of the law that has been tested in court be public, there should also exist an accessible version in simplified language.

    13. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all judicial interpretations of law should be public. Without this, the public has no way of knowing the law. When people are being prosecuted under secret laws, they are being subjugated.

      Rule of law does not work when the laws cannot be known.

      It barely works when it is simply infeasible (due to the massive body of law) to know all the laws, when it is illegal to know them, things are worse.

    14. Re:Yeah, that's the ticket by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Setec Astronomy

  4. NOW they tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somewhere in Moscow, a lone man can be heard saying, "What?!? All I had to do was ask? Damnit!"

    1. Re:NOW they tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:NOW they tell us by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Somewhere in Moscow GRU, FSB, SVR, siloviki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silovik) are wondering is this just all a generational political fight between CIA and NSA contractors for political power?
      Play the optics until the trap becomes clear.
      Their endless hunt for cleared US staff goes on. All the online resumes with code words and colour pictures are found and sorted. Short on cash, a hidden past, just needing a new friend...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:NOW they tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would explain the magically convenient discovery of general Petraeus' infidelity by an FBI agent's warrantless access to an e-mail account on a whim. They get Petraeus fired, the CIA in turn exposes the NSA and the FBI's involvement in setting up the NSA's taps on the U.S. and the rest of the world. I know you wanted to say it, but didn't. And I don't give a fuck if Snowden is the next Emmanuel Goldstein, I'll suck his cock. And I'm totally hetero.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    4. Re:NOW they tell us by dbIII · · Score: 2

      No that thing was obvious. A turf war escalated and the FBI showed they had more muscle. There's no point trying to tie other things into the chaos of what are effectively rogue agencies, they may as well be medieval Italian city states or mafia families. Trying to starve them of funds just ends up with stuff like North selling weapons to terrorists that had killed over a hundred US marines less than a year before the deal.

    5. Re:NOW they tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because obviously this would all have turned out the same way if there had been no leaks.

  5. Feeding Us What They Want Us To See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They cannot be trusted. They'll only feed us what they want us to see and nothing more. They'll deny that they do much more, and even will tell us they've curtailed some efforts.

    They are the government. They lie. They cannot be trusted.

    1. Re:Feeding Us What They Want Us To See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all voted lawyers in. Bitch about the money as much as you want, vote fraud is tiny (even considering florida in 2000) compared to the number of folks who vote for lawyers.

    2. Re:Feeding Us What They Want Us To See by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Funny

      [An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
      "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard." ...

      "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

      "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

      "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

      "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

      "I did," said ford. "It is."

      "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

      "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

      "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

      "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

      "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

      "What?"

      "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

      "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

      Ford shrugged again.

      "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  6. Suitably redacted of course by msobkow · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Just redacted enough to make them useless.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Suitably redacted of course by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Just redacted enough to make them useless.

      Then redact the NSA!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:Suitably redacted of course by geekoid · · Score: 2

      The amount of illegal searches done by the NSA is well, well under 1%.
      Keep that in mind when you are looking at a list that only contains the wrong doing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Suitably redacted of course by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter how much is (according to them) legal? You won't escape a murder charge because you almost never kill people, why should the secret police be allowed to run free because (they say) they almost never abuse their power?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Suitably redacted of course by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      The amount of illegal searches done by the NSA is well, well under 1%.
      Keep that in mind when you are looking at a list that only contains the wrong doing.

      Damnit! you mean if I keep my illegal activities under 1% I'm not going to get in trouble@?! FUCK I never heard of this before.... Is that how all those Lawers and bankers get away with fraud and extortion? How do you know what 1% of a persons money is? is this an honor system? because it's sounding like it and that is great news....

      Now I can kill my wife if I only get 99 more.... hummm that's a lot of lip.... but i'll be able to beat one of them every so many days... nah.... keep the wife and i'll just rape only 1% of the women I see...

  7. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll wait for the same, but unredacted docs that Snowden releases.

    1. Re: Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will we ever see all the docs that Snowden has so bravely taken. Surely a good chunk of the really bad stuff is his personal insurance policy, or am I way off the mark here?

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

      I doubt we'll ever see ALL of them. I expect that, as you say, he'll hang onto some of the juicier bits for his own insurance, but it's just as likely that at some point someone will actually be able to stop the leaks as well - especially if the problems are resolved. Which problems? All of them. How will they be resolved? Well, at the rate we're going, they'll be resolved by lead.

    3. Re: Yawn... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I imagine the NSA has loads of great political blackmail information against politicians and other powerful individuals. In fact that's one of my long-term fears: How exactly are you supposed to keep a black-ops surveillance program in check when it has the goods on all the people who might reign it in?

      Anyway, it seems to me that such info would be a lot more valuable as insurance than any sort of big reveal about the surveillance itself.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. SO WHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lsvip/us_and_uk_spy_agencies_defeat_privacy_and/

    http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lt3g1/feds_beg_ny_times_pro_publica_not_to_reveal_that/

    WE KNOW YOUR DOING WRONG and NOW YOU TRY AND CRY WOLF

  9. Americans too dumb anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can hope the release will finally wake Americans up to the wrongs of their oppressive government but I doubt it. More likely we will see their Nobel Peace prize winning assassin feed them more of the 'but it makes you safer and of course you can trust your government' BS.

    1. Re:Americans too dumb anyway by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our government isn't oppressive. It generally doesn't have to be, as we're usually more than willful in our ability to distract ourselves. Think along the lines of Bread and Circuses and Brave New World. The "news" is reporting that some stupid socialite bimbo was all over some singer with a sexist song after some other singer bimbo got nearly naked on stage for her part of his performance. Other "news" is reporting on some stupid gal who had sex on camera with some stupid guy that had sex with some pathetic gal that has tested positive for HIV, and the only close-to-relevant part is that the original gal was engaging in sexual exchanges with a guy that wants to be mayor of a really big city.

      We don't have to have an oppressive government; we're fat-and-happy to the point that we don't care what our government does as long as our big-screen TVs provide us with enough sensationalism to keep us occupied by the 24 hour "news" cycle.

      The sad thing, really, is that I expect that the vast majority of people are so boring that there isn't even anything interesting to know about them by watching them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Americans too dumb anyway by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Define oppression the way some of us do, and your argument falls flat.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:Americans too dumb anyway by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      The sad thing, really, is that I expect that the vast majority of people are so boring

      Thank heavens for that, you were starting to depress me.

    4. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by TWX · · Score: 1

      Okay, define it, in as many words as you need. Mind you, I look on what's going down as being potential for later oppression, not occurring oppression, especially from the Federal level. I expect that state or local levels will actually infringe or outright oppress with much greater likelihood affecting my life than the Federal government will in practical matters. What they're doing is wrong, but it hasn't reached a level that causes behavioral changes in the bulk of the population. Once it really does that in earnest then use of the word applies.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the US but here are some things I've noticed that are fairly oppressive.

      They control and monitor your traveling, communication and associations. They'll throw you in jail for consuming certain substances. Force you to admit guilt (being guilty or not) on threat of overwhelming jail times or punishments. Justice seems more like something bought than something inherent. Large smear campaigns of anyone that would dare stand against them.

      (All instances of "they" or "them" refer to the abstract cohesion of a large bureaucratic body.)

    6. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "They control and monitor your traveling, communication and associations.
      not really. No one tells me whether or not I can go someplace.

      " They'll throw you in jail for consuming certain substances."
      Also, speeding, parachuting into unauthorized airspace. So what?
      I can't help but notice marijuana is being reduced. Its at a political change pace(slow) but it is changing. This president has made great strides. Yo do know that a mojority of AMericans want it to be illegal, right?

      " Force you to admit guilt (being guilty or not) on threat of overwhelming jail times or punishments."
      extremely rare.

      " Large smear campaigns of anyone that would dare stand against them."
      Politically? i.e. candidate v. candidate? yes. Otherwise, not so much. WHere is the large campaign against the EFF?

      You need to top getting how thing in america work from TV Shows and slashdot.

      "All instances of "they" or "them" refer to the abstract cohesion of a large bureaucratic body.
      which is why I hate the term. The US government is made up of several agencies/bureaus. Each one with a differing about of bureaucracy.

      Do you know why mankind invented bureaucracy? so we can do complex things well.

      What people don't like to notice is that when something does come out, it's almost allows overall minor, and people get punished.

      the US isn't oppressive in any meaningful way. Oppressive governments don't release information about things that went wrong.
      For example: The DOD encyclopedia of ethical failures.

      www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete_2012.doc

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by TWX · · Score: 1

      They control and monitor your traveling, communication and associations. They'll throw you in jail for consuming certain substances. Force you to admit guilt (being guilty or not) on threat of overwhelming jail times or punishments. Justice seems more like something bought than something inherent. Large smear campaigns of anyone that would dare stand against them.

      They don't monitor or control all of my traveling. Yes, there are places where my license plate will be noted. There are also places where I may be stopped by an immigration officer. On the other hand, if I headed out, right now, for a 5000 mile road trip no one would stop me or attempt to even find out why I was doing it. I could also buy a cash bus ticket, or hitchhike, or rent a car, or ride a bicycle, and they wouldn't know where I was or where I was headed.

      They don't monitor or control all of my communications. I have a ham radio license and I could talk to other hams and it's exceedingly unlikely that they're monitoring all of the available EM spectrum. If your definition of control includes the miniscule licensing requirements, I could use CB radio, or FRS radio. Or cheapo open-spectrum walkie-talkies. I can send mail through private shipping companies or private couriers and it'll arrive untouched and unopened. Ironically, I'm probably more secure using a landline phone to call another landline phone, as the rules for what they're allowed to do with those are actually more strict.

      I have never been approached due to my associations. I am acquainted with a man in my community that was successfully prosecuted for weapons violations, and whose organization at the time was infiltrated because of a video they made and distributed that gave practical advice for destroying large buildings with explosives. After he served his three or so years for having an assault rifle modified for full-auto fire, he's free to be associated with again, and his only significant restriction is that he's not allowed to own guns anymore. This is a man that could well have been justifiably branded as a terrorist or a member of a terrorist cell, and yet his illegal acts got him only three years off and a need to check in with a parole officer once a month, even under Janet Reno's prosecution. I don't run into him very often, but he's otherwise free to come and go as he pleases. I've also never had any issues with some of the very extreme college professors that I've had classes from, and these people are published in their extreme views.

      I don't feel that I can comment on the drugs side. I've known people that have gotten busted and basically got released with misdemeanor charges, though I've heard of cases where people received much stronger sentences than their offenses justified. But, remember, the bulk of these prosecutions are at the state level, not the federal level, and are very much inconsistent from state to state. A former coworker of mine noted that in Illinois, possession of a personal quantity of marijuana would result in a civil citation like a parking ticket, as opposed to the criminal prosecution like it would see here.

      As for charges, the state will file any and all charges against you that prosecutors feel are appropriate. But, it's a paper tiger in some ways. You'll note that there have been examples of late like the Casey Anthony trial and the George Zimmerman trial where the prosecution lost, even though it appeared that they had very strong cases. Plus, even though it's not as common as it should be, sometimes the authorities themselves are arrested and convicted of their crimes too. On top of that, if defendants and defense attorneys decided to start forcing prosecutions to all go to trial instead of being plead down, it would break the judiciary. There literally would not be enough time to try everyone. A lack of ability to try everyone does not strike me as a hallmark of a police state.

      I'm curious as to what you mean by "smear ca

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      not really. No one tells me whether or not I can go someplace.

      Hop on a plane to Cuba then. Or make too many trips to some place like Iran (that's where the monitoring comes in).

      So what?

      Awh yes. So it's not oppressive because you don't care about it. Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the metric we were using. They have no reason to do it. That's why it is oppressive. There have been many places where the majority has said otherwise. They get overruled.

      extremely rare.

      I was under the impression that "plea bargaining" was business as usual. At least I've read of a few prominent prosecutors use that as an excuse.

      Otherwise, not so much.

      Assange, Manning, Snowdon. All of them had a lot of effort put into discrediting their reputability.

      which is why I hate the term. The US government is made up of several agencies/bureaus. Each one with a differing about of bureaucracy.

      In the great words of geekoid "so what?" They still all come together to make things how they are.

      Do you know why mankind invented bureaucracy? so we can do complex things well.

      And that means bureaucracy is always good right? That it can never cause problems and be counter-productive?

      the US isn't oppressive in any meaningful way.

      They have the highest prison population in the world! I'd consider that a meaningful way. There is something wrong there! You have only defined "meaningful" as something that directly affects yourself. There is at least one very famous quote I can think of dealing with that exact outlook. They are not oppressive in the same way as other prominent examples but that does not mean everything is A-Ok. Sometimes I think the worst thing people like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler did to this world weren't their massive crimes against humanity but instead the fact that now people say: "Everything is fine because at least we're not under _X_".

    9. Re: Americans too dumb anyway by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You seem to think oppressive means totalitarian. It doesn't.

      Oppressive just means oppressive. Why don't you look it up, instead of thinking it means something else.

      I can oppress you and admit to it. I can even admit its wrong. Telling your citizens to report each other for being suspicious is step one to being oppressive. Tapping phone lines is a big step too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  10. what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the point of surveillance when everyone knows that you are doing it?

    your intel is worse then useless because you are hearing what they want you to hear

    supposedly the nsa has our smartest people

    this doesn't seem all that smart

    1. Re:what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if it is smart. People want voyeurism dammit! Voyeurism! .... I mean "transparency."

    2. Re:what's the point by causality · · Score: 1

      what's the point of surveillance when everyone knows that you are doing it?

      You never read 1984 or you didn't fully comprehend it.

      The message is, "you will fall in line, or we WILL find you". The patient and therefore smart move is to set up the surveillence infrastructure first, get people used to the idea, and then become a more oppressive government. The only power governments have over their own citizens is against people who break the law.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sort of have to dispute the last point you make, "the only power governments have over their own citizens is against people who break the law."

      You probably had to sign up for compelled military service at one point. I'd call that "power". And I won't even go into all the harassment and abuses that the executive branch could heap upon a victim if they felt like it, with total impunity.

      Heck, I could probably be disappeared to Gitmo without due process the way things are now.

    4. Re:what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could blackmail 10% of the population into doing your binding, you'd get enormous power over the 90% left. And it's actually more likely they can blackmail 90% of the population.

    5. Re:what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can blackmail all of the population. You don't need dirt on people to be able to blackmail them, you only need to be able to convincingly threaten them and if you want to do it with information, the information still doesn't have to be correct.

    6. Re:what's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, precisely. All they have to do is say "we have incontrovertible evidence that we can't let anyone see because national security" and if the CSI-watching jury is convinced it's real like DNA evidence, they'll do whatever the government tells them.

  11. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will lie again.

  12. Gov't releases evidence about illegal spying... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today the government, under the Freedom of Information Act, released further evidence to its illegal spying on American citizens. However, it still adamantly refuses to actually stop the agencies from continuing in these actions. "I don't think it's our place", a Senator - insisting on anonymity - said.

    "Yeah", one NSA agent was overheard saying. "It's no big thing that this information is out there. It's not as if we care what the people think anymore."

    In response, the FBI announced it intends to one-up the NSA by revealing they shot Kennedy. "The NSA are just a bunch of Johnny-come-lately amateurs when it comes to screwing over the citizens of America. We've been doing illegal wiretaps for decades. And don't get me started on the fun stuff we did back under Hoover's administration; it's about time we got recognition for all that work!"

    Asked if he worried that these relevations might have unexpected consequences, he said "Nah; it's obvious that the average citizen is so apathetic that we might as well flaunt our villainy. Anyway, what can they do? We have the power, the guns, the money. Let them whine on YouTube; we'll get to them soon enough."

    A nearby CIA agent refused any comment as he drove off in what appeared to be an Area-51 flying saucer.

    1. Re:Gov't releases evidence about illegal spying... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In response, the FBI announced it intends to one-up the NSA by revealing they shot Kennedy.

      I think that the only proper response to that would be "Get in line!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Gov't releases evidence about illegal spying... by gVibe · · Score: 1

      That's funny right thar, I don't care who ya are.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
  13. Good luck with that by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Informative

    They already intentionally lied to the congress and suffered no consequences even after that was found out. What are the odds of what they show is the real full documents or just a redacted, partial, totally false or even a bunch of pages filled with loren ipsum? They already proved that deserve no trust and that don't care at all about it.

  14. I have an advance copy by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Funny

    In REDACTED the US Department of Homeland Security REDACTED REDACTED and, under the direction of REDACTED, REDACTED of the National Security Agency, implemented REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED. Additionally programs were setup to REDACTED REDACTED and REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED using REDACTED. The methods included REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED as well as REDACTED REDACTED.

    Signed,
    Fuck You Citizens

    1. Re:I have an advance copy by CamD · · Score: 1

      The full text.

    2. Re:I have an advance copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you got the last two lines wrong, which reveals you as an impostor, of course. My advance copy has:

      REDACTED,

      REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

  15. Been there, done that by ronmon · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice shirt, lol!

      http://www.localemttraining.net

    2. Re:Been there, done that by AHuxley · · Score: 1
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Great! by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    If we can piece together any meaning from what's left after all the giant magic marker redactions.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Great! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's happened before. Enough stuff was released with documents quoting each other and different redactions that the unredacted stuff was reassembled. Redaction only works if consistently applied or if there is no duplicate information.
      One USSR example of linked secret documents was an order for all documents about a mass grave to be destroyed. That order about document destruction listed the location of the mass grave and some other details about the information that was presumably in the destroyed documents. When you tell people in government run groups to break their own rules you get that sort of creative way of obeying orders while giving themselves a way out when the next leader wants to know where the bodies are buried (in that case literally).

    2. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love it if the redactions formed a Morse code with a secret message.

  17. And nothing will change by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    ... because you can't ask government to hold itself accountable for breaking the law.

    1. Re:And nothing will change by slick7 · · Score: 1

      ... because you can't ask government to hold itself accountable for breaking the law.

      But as the government's employer, you can fire them, then try them in a court of law/grand jury.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:And nothing will change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 funny. Yeah, sure we can.

    3. Re:And nothing will change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because you can't ask government to hold itself accountable for breaking the law.

      But as the government's employer, you can fire them, then try them in a court of law/grand jury.

      The government's employer ... that must be those who pay the government to do what they want, right? That would be the big corporations. And they probably will not be upset about the NSA as long as they get their share of trade secrets of their foreign competitors. Quite the opposite, they'll say "keep up the good work."

  18. I wonder what they'll hide by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    Okay, so we're getting "hundreds" of pages. Even if they're heavily redacted, it's a start. But anyone thinking that the government's documents on this only number in the hundreds is incredibly deluded.

    So even if this sheds light above and beyond the Snowden leaks (either now or future), I'm sure they have plenty of stuff about the NSA, FISC/A, and more that they are withholding us. Maybe we'll get an idea of what that is once the EFF and others finish reading through all this...

    1. Re:I wonder what they'll hide by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Okay, so we're getting "hundreds" of pages. Even if they're heavily redacted, it's a start.

      Of what? A war on toner? If all of the bad stuff is redacted it only serves to make it look like they are being open and responding to a FOI request when they are not. This doesn't mean anything yet. Until we actually see how redacted the documents are. I"m sure 99% of the information will be missing.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  19. QUICK - THEY'RE ON OUR TAIL! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Release the Chaff

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:QUICK - THEY'RE ON OUR TAIL! by mysidia · · Score: 0

      Execute Order 66

    2. Re:QUICK - THEY'RE ON OUR TAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wing Attack Plan R?

      God I'm getting old.

  20. Is SELinux vulnerable? by DMJC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We know the NSA has been promoting security standards that they can hack into. We know they've been pushing weaker security at standards organisations etc. Could SELinux which was developed by the NSA be vulnerable to this sort of attack? Could the NSA have a backdoor into Linux itself? I know that Linux should be the only alternative to Windows/OSX at this point for people trying to avoid NSA spying, but could Linux itself be vulnerable to the attacks the NSA can launch on other platforms?

    1. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I didn't trust SELinux for that reason period. Then trusting the makers of the Clipper chip would be like trusting a convicted child molester as a baby sitter.

    2. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could SELinux which was developed by the NSA be vulnerable to this sort of attack?

      Yes, it could.

      Could the NSA have a backdoor into Linux itself?

      Yes, they have, as does Chinese, Vupen, etc. Whether to call them "backdoors" or "just a random security holes" is left as a philosophical discussion.

      but could Linux itself be vulnerable to the attacks the NSA can launch on other platforms?

      Yes.

    3. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that Linux should be the only alternative to Windows/OSX at this point for people trying to avoid NSA spying...

      Yeah, Linux is totally the only alternative. Right...

    4. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by elashish14 · · Score: 2

      I know that Linux should be the only alternative to Windows/OSX at this point

      What's wrong with BSD?

      Of course, there's always this issue which I haven't seen mentioned recently. The fact that nothing similar has come forward on Linux is concerning to me....

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    5. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by ghost_templar · · Score: 2

      Relax already. The code for SELinux is freely available and I can guarantee you, well vetted by now. If it had a backdoor, someone would have noticed. I would have thought Linux users of all people, knowing the benefits of open-source code, would be less likely to be showing knee-jerk reactions about this sort of thing.

      Be paranoid sure, but sometimes a bit of thought and logic can make you rest easy at night. It's a shame a well-designed security architecture is now tainted simply because it has the acronym NSA associated with it.

      --
      "Holy crap! A weapon just floating in space!"
    6. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by durin · · Score: 1

      Sure it's well vetted. But consider that you often don't know by whom. Lots of eyes on code does open up the potential for having a few Byzantine generals.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    7. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by ghost_templar · · Score: 1

      Yeah I suppose that's true. But then you start to go down the path of wondering just how much of your system CAN you trust. What if your compiler, or the compiler used to build your distro, was compromised without anyone's knowledge? There's a famous paper about the issue (https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf) and it's hard to believe at least someone wouldn't have attempted a nefarious use of the concept. What if some of the microcode which directly controls your hardware has been compromised, before it was even sold?

      Taken to its extreme, you basically can't trust ANY software or hardware that you didn't build yourself. So what then? May as well give up on technology by that point. The only realistic choice we have is think logically, rationally, and decide on what level of protection we can live with, and what's within the realms of danger and what's likely to be compromised.

      --
      "Holy crap! A weapon just floating in space!"
    8. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      could Linux itself be vulnerable to the attacks the NSA can launch

      That's the most awesome question ever. Likely to spark a heated debate with an incredibly obvious answer.

      Lulz, nice one.

    9. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Debian SSH key problem? Do you know for sure that it wasn't sneaked in on behalf of the NSA?

    10. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Bigger question is why we aren't talking about the NSA breaking SSL.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:Is SELinux vulnerable? by MSG · · Score: 1

      People keep asking this question without any idea how it possibly could be a back door.

      SELinux is a security layer in addition to the existing security controls. It can deny applications the permission to perform various actions, and that's about it.

      How do you imagine that it would be a back door?

  21. EFF by fred133 · · Score: 1

    So, what's the EFF using for email these days?
    paper and pencil via carrier pigeon?
    just curious..... :)

  22. Re: Drown 'em in paperwork. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    You're funny, but that stopped being true about say 5 years ago - with the rise of social media came even better crowdsourcing, so we'd have that stuff split open in under a month.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  23. Here's a Sample by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    I already know what they're gonna say:

    Here was a block of asterisks in the shape of a piece of paper, but the junk filter got me. So, visual funny gone, stupid rant added. Anyways, the whole thing will be mostly black lines and some page numbers, maybe part of some letterhead.

    and so on

    * Hopefully this will get around the "junk" filter - I mean, I'm displaying a visual representation here, /.. Alas, the technology to differentiate between meaningless spam and an approximation of what a gov't document will look like isn't there yet. Maybe a linked image would do? But no one follows the links

    1. Re:Here's a Sample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as they are botching things lately it will probably be redacted with black boxes over the actual text. Don't use the copy and paste trick on it though or you run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

  24. Even Odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The documents will contain header information with the body blacked out - redacted entirely.

    Face facts. The greatest enemy of the Federal Government (unelected government) and the NSA and the President (and O Biden) are the legal citizens of the United States of America.

  25. cloaked in plain sight. by Revek · · Score: 1

    What way better to hide your transgressions.

  26. At G-20 Obama To Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Give me Snowden, and I'll give you all the Syrian peoples lives in exchange. Well? Do we have a deal?"

    1. Re:At G-20 Obama To Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin's answer:

      "I don't care about the Syrian people. And when you attack Syria, I'll have a good argument for the Syrian government that it needs to buy more Russian weapons. Of course I'll publicly complain about your move. But as long as you don't remove the Syrian government, I do not really have any problem with it."

    2. Re:At G-20 Obama To Putin by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Nah how about...

      I don't care about the people? i care about selling weapons and drugs and virgin pussy!.did I say weapons? i drink lot wait.. You SPYED on ME!!!!! you lucky i sold all working nuks already or I FUCKING KILL you...

      Anyway your Snowden ok guy. WORK HARD breaking in your nsa for us now... and only wanted hot stripper and nice computer gear with flat pannels! Not even care much about money!?!... very good deal... you stupid Americans not know how to treat your surveillance peoples. Capitalist too cheap, think war is game. i show you game. I call it Russian Roulette. COME we play and drunk with whores. life is good! no? you black man dont u like big buts and do not care? dog you need get away from das Christian wierdo's... they make you think god care about people! god only care about god and pussy! Russian Pussy! It best kind because it part of Russian Women.. they not talk back! know they get beat to death.

      All good in homeland. pussy pussy! everywhere pussy! Wait... where my drink.?. WHO fuckin take it AH! best not be your NSA or I use chemical weapon on you! they ready to go. already sold but I give buyer good deal on some Pu235... that shut them up. What you look at me like that? eh? you scared of radiation? it not bad. make you strong! Russia land of radiation! glorious radiation! scientist make best friends. so CHEAP! just want lab and make me MONEY! sooo much money i shit on it....

      awww why you cry? rule of law broken? you give me talking to? ah? ah? You sad sad little man... but I give you good deal on slightly used virgin bride!? you no tell wife! put her down in war room under whites house... eh? good deal?!? how bout twins? they no spies. no really.. I just pay your people now it much easier.... learned from you in 80s?! why you change what work so good? you run drugs, sell arms, train terrorist but now? eh! You teach us sooo much... WE learned, now you stupid. how happen that? yo want to go back to cold war? we play along... good business! how about? ah?

  27. Anything new being released? by mendax · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder how much of this stuff is already out in the wild thanks to Edward Snowden's efforts. Not much point if all this shit turns out to have already been released. It wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of this is old news.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Anything new being released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My penny is on the stuff being nothing of consequence, stuff that makes them look like inept now and then, and some made up things about thwarting this and that attack here and there that sort of vague stuff.

  28. the government is spying on ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you realize how typical that is?
    ME, I'm fuckin NOBODY, i'm boring, i even pay taxes. You think these guys are playing 007 and have trillions of dollars of cool computer shit to hunt down some maniacal madman?
    NO, this is the equivilent of the fat ole bastard at the DMV processing your license. THIS is your government.
    Carlos Danger wants to run for office and people will vote for him. Because at least he never worked for the DMV.
    By the way, have you ever actually met anyone that works for the IRS?
    So have some pity on the poor bastard that has to sit in a cubicle all day making 5 copies of my 40,000 page dossier. Then he sits there with a black magic marker and redacts some much shit that it becomes obvious i am a HUGE threat to national security.
    Now go talk to your neighbor, you know, the one who says "well he's gotta be guilty of something"
    fuck! we are fucking fucked!

    1. Re:the government is spying on ME by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      It's ok friend you come to Russia! We got lots of PUSSY, DRUGS AND MONEYS!!!! You member of anonymous? We hire on SPOT! no questions. Even give you license to kill 5 people a year... We don't care... This is Russia!!! We land of glorious freedoms! Come, I show you. You meet famous ex-nsa man! He show you too. Now has many different PUSSIES to choose from plus bide to cook and clean... all state funded welfare for government spy workers.... it not ugly pussy... no..no..no trick you like that... those for stupid people, no skill... You come visit.... Be guest, we give free list of credit card numbers when come and even programmer... you must give back, honor system.. programmers very expensive, so in demand! You not show anyone, all be good....

      Yours in Moscow,
      V. PUTIN, OVER 9000 STRONGEST EVER!

  29. Section 215? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody else in California do a double-toke, errr.. double-take on that?

  30. sept 10th will come and go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    without any significant release of data...

    the excuse will be... "we ran out of toner, evidently photocopying pages of blackened text uses a LOT of it. we'll try to get more apportioned in next year's budget, but the actual time frame is up to congress''

    1. Re:sept 10th will come and go by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      We can only hope they release a PDF version as well... Shhh say NOTHING! KNOW NOTHING!!!!

  31. Foreign by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    What part of 'Foreign' does the NSA and their lawyers not understand? It must be a publiek skooling thing, no child left behind and all that...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  32. Re:Slum dog Obummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they change a lot of text to "[Redacted]", how is that not change?

    As far as I remember, the slogan was just "Change". Not "Change for the better".

  33. Re:Slum dog Obummer by liamevo · · Score: 1

    Dislike Obama all you like, but jesus christ, are you 12? Obummer? Really?

  34. They're already doing it. by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Here's one of the first documents released.

    Try to control your excitement.