Slashdot Mirror


Obama Announces Surveillance Reforms

In a speech today, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes for the operations of the country's intelligence agencies. He says the current program will end "as it currently exists," though most of the data collection schemes will remain intact. However, the data collected in these sweeps will not be stored by the U.S. government, instead residing with either the communications providers or another third party. (He pointed out that storing private data within a commercial entity can have its own oversight issues, so the attorney general and intelligence officials will have to figure out the best compromise.) In order for the NSA to query the database, they will need specific approval from a national security court. Obama also announced "new oversight" to spying on foreign leaders, and an end to spying on leaders of friendly and allied countries. Further, decisions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will be annually reviewed for declassification. A panel advocating for citizen privacy will have input into the FISC. There will be chances to national security letters: they will no longer have an indefinite secrecy period. Companies will be able to disclose some amount of information about the NSLs they receive, something they've been asking for. Another change is a reduction in the number of steps from suspected terrorists that phone data can be gathered. Instead of grabbing all the data from people three steps away, it's now limited to two.

83 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

    Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

    1. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by killhour · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty obvious what's going on. The administration knows it needs to do something to save face, and wants to do it on their own terms preemptively before they have to respond to proposals by people that AREN'T working for the NSA's best interests. If Obama cared, he would have done something about it BEFORE it was a PR nightmare.

    2. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      He cares all right... he want's MORE surveillance. He's proved it many times over.

      For what it's worth, I agree that Obama's proposal is nothing more than a whitewash. I'll support the other bills that come up in the House and Senate.

    3. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by Idou · · Score: 2

      tin_foil_hat_mod=1

      Maybe Obama does care, but cannot show it because the NSA would destroy his future by revealing some secret information they have found on him or his family. Accordingly, perhaps Snowden was actually a plant by some government official/agency outside of the NSA, trying to expose the monster the agency has become. However, until the NSA powers are reduced enough, everyone in the know also has to pretend Snowden is a fugitive.

      .... who wants to buy movie rights?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    4. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by JavaLord · · Score: 2

      And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

      Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

      Really, this is just strong government period. The government is telling corporations they must store data for surveillance purposes. This is a tax, as business must pay for the storage. Big business might not mind it that much, because it increases barriers to entry for small guys and creates and incentive for the government to keep them in business.

      I'd agree that totally removing a government creates a power vacuum. However, if Obama had made strict rules regarding a citizens privacy in regards to government and business that wouldn't create a power vacuum it would just mean the citizens are the empowered entity in the equation.

    5. Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      It's pretty obvious what's going on. The administration knows it needs to do something to save face, and wants to do it on their own terms preemptively before they have to respond to proposals by people that AREN'T working for the NSA's best interests.

      I don't think it's about saving face... with us, anyway. It's pretty obvious the desires and opinions of Americans don't really matter to American politicos. But it IS becoming obvious that non-US companies are starting to choose non-US alternatives to Amazon, Google, and the like for their IT needs. Obama has probably figured out he may go down in history as the guy in charge when the fortunes of US tech companies started to crumble - and politicians DO care about corporate opinion.

      None of it matters, of course. Trust, once lost, can never be completely regained. This government (meaning the last 20 years or so, not just during Obama's watch) has done more to damage US interests and competitiveness than any terrorist group could have even dreamed about in their wildest hashish-induced hallucinations.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  2. I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...this sounds to me like rebranding.

    1. Re:I don't know... by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, we're still going to spy on your web history and every phone call, email, text, etc. that you send or receive. But this time WE PROMISE not to look at it! Satisfied, assholes?

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  3. Money Talks by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words:
    1) A private enterprise will store secret data: What could possibly go wrong?
    2) More secret court oversight: as if the secret court that exists right now is not rubber-stamping everything the NSA passes its way.
    3) Companies will be able to talk about the secret court orders: Google and Facebook signed a big check for the future Obama Presidential Library?
    4) Rest assured this is a true reform! Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot the #5:

      5) A reasonable and smart Constitutional scholar and former professor is overseeing the process now.

      Obama isn't the retarded Bush that could barely read. Obama actually has an Ivy League degree. He didn't draft dodge like Bush. While he hasn't stopped the TSA, he hasn't increased their power like Bush would have done. We can trust him. That's what different this time around.

    2. Re:Money Talks by Garridan · · Score: 2

      This is already EXACTLY what happens. The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), for example, is a private company whose largest (though not sole, if you read between the lines... a comforting thought) client is the NSA. So basically, Obama's "reform" is "don't worry guys, we'll totally change everything: third parties will collect and analyze your information, the NSA will only purchase access to that information. Just like we're already doing." Sadly, this is "change I can believe in" 'cause it's the same bullshit I've come to expect from this twofaced asshole.

    3. Re:Money Talks by robinsonne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So people with Ivy League degrees never lie? He definitely tries more at being smooth-talking and glib but I trust him even less than Bush. Which is more dangerous, an incompetent crook that is blunt and makes mistakes or a competent one that doesn't?

    4. Re:Money Talks by Antipater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what scares me the most.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    5. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, and how did this get modded 'insightful'?

      You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

    6. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh. Bush graduated from Yale and got his MBA at Harvard. Spying programs expanded under Obama. You are delusional.

    7. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am sure he did not change his mind. Many people are just suckers and believe what political candidates say when running for office. He was a groomed candidate by a major political party. He was elected for two reasons, vitriolic hate for the opposing party and the color of his skin. The content of his character was not evaluated or scrutinized.

    8. Re:Money Talks by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

      As he did on many issues... wars, economic policy, etc.

      But go back and listen to some of those campaign speeches sometime, though. You'll find a lot of "YES WE CAN" and a lot of "we can do better" and "this needs to be fixed," but a lot of vagueness about detailed policies. I still remember talking to fans after the election (and that's what many of them were: fans), and they thought ANYTHING was possible. I kept saying, "Well, I'll believe it when I see it... everything was kept so vague except for the cheerleading speeches," but I was told that I was just being cynical. And I should shut up because I was ruining the party-time atmosphere and celebration.

      There were already a lot of clues in the campaign that the actual content was TBD when it came to what Obama would do in office.

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      Nah. There's no grand conspiracy. This happens with most politicians when they get elected. Obama was mostly a "blank slate" that just kept cheering "YES WE CAN," which allowed his fans to believe anything they wanted to believe about him. We heard a lot more about problems that needed to be solved than details about the solutions.

      And it turns out the details were pretty much similar to any other politicians from the two-party oligarchy.

      Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years.

      I do not dispute that he's a very smart man. I've always found calling him a "scholar" to be stretching it a bit: yes, he was a lecturer who taught Constitutional law for a number of years, but he wasn't permanent faculty at a law school. He didn't spend his days writing scholarly articles for legal journals. He was -- first and foremost -- a politician... and still is.

      This is not at all to disparage his knowledge of the Constitution. I'm sure he can read it just as well as most of us can, and -- regardless of whether he's a Constitutional "scholar or not -- if he merely passed the bar, I would hope that he could understand the plain meaning of things like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

      But the Bush administration clearly didn't, and they had a lot of lawyers working for them too. So... why should it be different again?? If we just keep saying "YES WE CAN" enough times over and over, will things magically get better?

    9. Re:Money Talks by slinches · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make the mistake of assuming that because he studied the constitution that he admires or at least respects the values and motivations that it codifies. Wouldn't someone looking to find a way to bring it down do the same? Or he may have no direct interest at all and just thought it a good thing to have on the resume as an aspiring politician.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    10. Re:Money Talks by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

      I think what happened is at the end of his first security briefing, he realized that he was actually responsible for a lot of bad situations and had a new stark view of reality.

  4. Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you like your privacy, you can keep it, period."

  5. The corporatism of America by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

    Another nice contract to somebody. No real change in the Status Quo.

    Gotta love that hope and change.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:The corporatism of America by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

      No, the biggest difference is that we're no longer going to spy on foreign leaders. Which is one of the few things the NSA was doing that was within their legal mandate (foreign signals intelligence is what they were created to do - domestic signals intelligence is something they were forbidden to do).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The corporatism of America by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't know. Look at the combination of elements here:
      1. 1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.
      2. 2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data. In contrast to today, where NSA has all the data at its fingertips and NSA employees make a hobby of poring through it for fun and profit.
      3. 3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it

      This is not everything I would hope for -- the secrecy of the FISA court remains a huge sticking point for me -- but I think these measures will improve things noticeably.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:The corporatism of America by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 2

      1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.

      The fact that anyone will store the data is in itself an egregious abuse of power. Don't collect it and don't store it.

      2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data.

      Which will be rubberstamped, as we've seen.

      3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it

      Something to give the appearance of doing something important.

      This is not everything I would hope for

      It shouldn't even be close.

    4. Re:The corporatism of America by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the wishful thinking that the NSA will somehow disappear that I consider foolish and childish.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  6. Unless laws change by Monoman · · Score: 2

    Unless laws change to explicitly ban behavior there is little to stop them from creating exceptions to their own policies and procedures.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Unless laws change by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      Laws don't need to change. Most of this is already unconstitutional. They've just been using their "State secrets" argument to keep it from getting to the supreme court to get ruled on.

    2. Re:Unless laws change by Monoman · · Score: 2

      Then explicitly outlaw that behavior because the existing law is not actually working.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    3. Re:Unless laws change by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. Let's pass a law that says it's illegal to disobey the law.

      The problem is that there are no penalties. The DOJ under Holder is not going to go after the NSA or any political entities that fall in line with the administration. Holder himself has been caught lying to congress, no penalties. If nothing can hold these people accountable, they're not going to change their ways. In theory, elections would serve this purpose, but the people running are all the same. It's not even like the people weren't paying attention. We had the TEA Parties, we had Occupy.. what changed?

      I really don't know where we go from here.

  7. All about saving face. Didn't even address prism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I watched the whole thing. He chose to focus on phone meta data collection and not even address prism and the likes of the new utah data center. The speech and these new "reforms" are all about preserving the NSA ecosystem (read money) that spends billions of dollars of tax payer money on programs we don't want. For christs sake they are tapping domestic fiber lines and siphoning everything into storage (including phone calls) and the language in the law doesn't even consider it a search until the data (that they already stored) is queried. He won't address it because they already spend billions on it and he who upsets the flow of money in washington might as well tie their own noose. The dollar sign is the new swastika.

  8. Re:So the hell what? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that. I have my own problems with the FISA court system but at least it does add an additional party looking over the requests and the small size of the court reduces the amount of work that can be done requiring the NSA to actually focus their work to real suspects. This change is good for American freedom from a surveillance state and it's probably good for our security as well as the analysts will be looking at sets of data with a higher signal to noise ratio.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. Re:So the hell what? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  10. Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard that Target put in a bid to securely host all of the secret data.

  11. Re:So the hell what? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since they claim they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now

    FTFY

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  12. Not only no ... by Chromium_One · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... but also go fuck yourself, Barry. Can't believe I voted for you. Ah well, let me look over the protest options next cycle.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    1. Re:Not only no ... by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Next time don't vote for a guy with no real trackrecord. For a politician, actions always speak louder than words.

    2. Re:Not only no ... by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which ruled out both McCain and Romney.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:Not only no ... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      He had a track record. In 2008 Senator Obama voted to grant phone companies retroactive immunity for participating in Bush's spying.

  13. Re:So the hell what? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that."

    Sorry, but no. The FISA court already approved all that in the past. So why would this make any difference?

    This is a joke. A distinction without a difference. You know very well that Obama has been in favor of expanding surveillance -- because he DID. This is just another of his many lies. He's pretending to address the issue without making any real, substantive changes.

  14. Trust us, we're, like, TOTALLY actually doing this by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about oversight? They say they're going to stop doing this and that, but how will we ever know whether they're being honest about it? How will we know whether the next president decides to turn the bus back around? Congressional oversight is a joke, as members of Congress (e.g,, Feinstein) are as much in favor of running roughshod over citizens' rights and allies' respect as Gen. Alexander is. FISC oversight is likewise pointless, and several of those judges have argued against even having an opposing side arguing for the privacy protections of the people. Short of another Snowden, there's no way to know.

  15. Obama as the official 'transparency president'... by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... recognized that his administration has slipped up in allowing the NSA to have 100% free feign with civilian surveillance. Our bad.

    To reward the citizens continued support of out cause we will be increasing the official ObamaChocolate programs weekly individual chocolate allowance from 30 grams to 25 grams.

  16. Re:So the hell what? by rlwhite · · Score: 2

    There's already been a report of one of the FISA judges asking for more funding to expand the court if this kind of change goes through. We can't count on the bandwidth remaining small.

  17. Re:So the hell what? by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see any of the "changes" they've made or have talked about making as protecting American freedom from a surveillance state. All I see is Washington trying to sweep things under the rug and bury things deeper.

    We made a change, won't you please forget it ever happened now? OOooooh look over there!!! Shiny!!!

  18. Re:So the hell what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

    Just as happy as the families of every detainee released when Gitmo closed five years ago, and the families of troops that all came home from Afghanistan and Iraq five years ago when we ended those wars.

  19. The mention of Snowden's name by mws1066 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When Obama mentioned Snowden's name, you could see a bit of disgust and a sneer streak across his face for a brief moment. He then felt the need to point out that he was ahead of Snowden, planning to confront the system anyway.

    --
    Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
  20. The transparency president by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about U.S. citizens can query the database and receive a report on what data the NSA has collected?

  21. Is it for real? by hduff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read "Enemies: A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner and you'll see that we have been through this BS before. Nothing changes.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  22. Re: So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I calculate the odds that this Politician is lying about this to be 100%.

  23. Re:So the hell what? by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Ever heard of pre-signed forms? The FISA court is worthless.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Informative

    what annoys me about this is obama is focusing on the phone data collection stuff. but what about PRISM, and the L3 infrastructure stuff, the new text message stuff (which is notable because it's content, not metadata), and all that jazz. he says the NSA's stuff is legal and he'll make a few adjustments, but he's ignoring all the ILLEGAL things they do. BTDubs the full text of the speech is at NYTimes.

  25. Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Regardless of one's feelings about Snowden, I think it's pretty clear these changes (IF actually implemented) are a result of him opening peoples' eyes to the extent of the surveillance and spying on the American people. We seriously owe him, big time imo.

    As an left-leaning independent, I was generally optimistic about Obama entering office, sadly, not so much any more --- NOT that I think things would be better under Republicans mind you, who seem to say 'less government' only in regards to their corporate overlords, but are heavy handed in wanting to legislate their personal morality (gay marriage/rights, religion, women's issues, etc)

    Many days I wish the US had a parliamentary system such as England or Canada, this two party sh*t if for the birds. At least in those countries, minority parties can actually gets seats and have some representation -- here, we are stuck with two lame ass parties.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    1. Re:Snowden: 1 Obama:0 by melchoir55 · · Score: 2

      The United States doesn't have a two party system. I believe a voter can write whoever they like in to the ballot. US citizens have convinced themselves they need to be on a winning "side" in an election. So, rather than vote for the person they think would best serve the office, they vote for the "side" they would prefer to win. US citizens have basically been rolled by game theory. That is, they all think they are all accomplished game theorists but are in fact *terrible* at it. They hate their leaders, they have the power to change it without violence, and they refuse to vote for anyone else. This isn't new. It has been this way so long that current young adults have never experienced a sane voting environment.

      It's actually kind of funny. Like a sad clown.

  26. "No evidence of abuse has been found" by Error27 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obviously LOVEINT is one example. But more details are coming out about how David Patraues was caught having an affair because of "metadata" collected by the NSA.
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/17/4111871/metadata-helped-reveal-gen-petraeus.html#.Utlud2nfqCg

    When Jill Kelley first reported getting threatening emails about Patraues, the FBI read all her emails as part of "a routine step".
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/us/from-petraeus-scandal-an-apostle-for-privacy.html

    They didn't have a warrant to read her email, they just hacked into google and made a copy of everyone's email. If you report a crime to the FBI they read your email. Simple as that.

  27. BETTER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There! I feel the hot breath of reform already. Big brother is a subcontract.

    Now the secret courts will have to examine secret accusations with extra secrecy. The NSA building data centers will be reversed, so that the commercial sector can occupy this function. And send the bill for "services".

     

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:BETTER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Or a crafty bastard that knows his constituency will fall for the "I didn't know they were doing this" act, again.

      When you sign the bills to grease pigs, you ought to figure they can slip the pen.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:BETTER! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      âoeaides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, just how far the surveillance had gone.â David Plouffe, Obamaâ(TM)s advisor, said, âoeThings seem to have grown at the NSA. I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.â

      As if anyone believe in the fairy tales the Obama administration tries so hard to tell the world.

      No matter how Obama tries, he just can't shirk his own responsibility as the POTUS. If he doesn't want to be responsible for anything that NSA has done during his time as the POTUS then I humbly suggest that Obama should abdicate his position as the POTUS.

      But would Obama do so ?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  28. A curb on *use* (not on *collection*) by hazeii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.

    In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.

    So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  29. only one problem.. by strstr · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real surveillance and intelligence community crimes and abuses were not addressed.

    They did nothing about the remote sensing and energy weapons abuses. Because they'd surely have to convict the President and others of crimes.

    Dr. Robert Duncan of the CIA says that radar systems were retro fitted with mind reading and mind altering technology in the 1970s and 1980s. Which they are using to remotely decode peoples thoughts, emotions, memories, and also to remotely control and commit secret assassinations and experimentation right here domestically for the last 35 years.

    These black operations can also be confirmed by NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who said they target Americans with space capability during their black operations. That includes illegal surveillance called Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, based on the same technologies Duncan disclosed.

    A US Investigative Services (defense contractor) employee also came forward to say that these weapons are real and being used to target people to me in private. In fact, she presumes, that I was targeted during highly illegal psych / weapons experimentation.

    This technology is the ultimate surveillance gear, and our fuck tard police, FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD and Homeland Security agents are running around using this in secret on us. Spying on our thoughts, memories, what we see, hear, think, and feel. Agents link up and covertly communicate and spy on citizens, and they attack and brutalize people, set them up to look mentally ill.

    Read USIS employee transcripts here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/USIS.html

    Read Remote Neural Monitoring article and 4+ patents covering these weapons, watch the 23+ videos including ones with Russell Tice and Dr. Robert Duncan admitting it here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

    Finally, see my homepage with more information including Dr. Robert Duncan's book about these abuses here : http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    My full story is on the site including names of people involved in targeting me with these weapons. It all started during the big US Department of Justice investigation of the mental health system going on here in Oregon, which has been going on since 2006.

    The thing is, Obama knows this is going on. And so do these intelligence analysts who created the recommendations for Obama. They did not even come close to addressing these issues, and covered it all up. Tice is also claiming the program PRISM that was the target of the recommendations, is the low tech side of the surveillance issue, while the space capabilities are the high tech side which were not mentioned or addressed once. The media has been retardly covering only the low tech side, censoring revelations from Russell Tice and others. Like Tice said in July 2013, Snowden's allegations were only scratching the surface. They are never going to stop illegally watching us, .. they got 30+ electron imaging Electronic Intelligence satellites watching us now, globally, and in America.

  30. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):

    From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government, according to annual Justice Department reports to Congress.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616

    You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  31. Treadstone ends, Blackbriar begins... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2

    Likely the 'new' program is already up and running, this just provides a distraction for the masses.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  32. Re:So the hell what? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    I believe that the solution will involve dividing the nation into precincts on the lines established by state and local voting. Each precinct will have have their own FISA judge assigned.

    What a safer country, will America be, than it was in former days, when known as land of free.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  33. It's not just the president, but gov. corruption. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, the President is not allowed to know everything about what the secret agencies do. There have been many examples of that.

    The U.S. government has engaged in violence each year for more than 100 years, to make a profit for a few. Anyone desiring more information about that can, for example, read these highly rated books:

    Overthrow: America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer

    The brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and their secret world war by Stephen Kinzer

  34. This will help build PRISM v2.0 by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So since the commercial entities will now be responsible for storing all of this data, care to guess as to how much the big carriers are going to charge us, the customer, for this now-mandatory requirement?

    One can only imagine the cost of storing the NSAs requirements for oversight. All I do know is the costs sure as hell won't come out of the executive bonus fund. The customer will foot that bill. I promise you.

    And forget deleting the data. Any of it. Ever. That's not an option.

    Then the US government, for the sake of "redundancy", will still contract with some other 3rd party to store all of the same data over again, so they can create a new "Federal Communications Security Act" tax or some other horseshit to bilk the American people out of even more money, and fund PRISM v2.0

    Oh...I'm sorry, did you actually believe they wouldn't do this again? Please. Besides, PRISM v2.0 has an app store, and the drone app I hear is killer.

  35. I guess I don't understand the public uproar by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I'll be modded down for this, but whatever.

    I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on. I guess that now the data is structured and easily searchable rather than having to stitch together random analog phone conversations. But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something. The Internet is a collection of semi-public networks, always has been. And spying has always existed; that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

    Everyone loves to bash the president, but I'll bet it's not an easy job. Imagine what it was like for Cold War presidents...when the Soviet Union was actively planning our destruction and we were planning theirs. Coming back from the inauguration party, you meet with your top generals and are told of every threat that hasn't been made public. On top of that, you're ultimately responsible for nuclear weapons AND you somehow have to make everyone like you. I imagine something like this happened with Obama...once he got the job he was briefed on what's actually happening outside of the public eye, and chose to continue the spying programs. Post 9/11, there were many people who didn't want to see that relatively minor event repeated at any cost, which is why these programs were put in place to begin with. An entity that was determined enough and had enough resources would be able to cause way worse devastation if they wanted to.

    So call me an ignorant sheep or whatever -- I just don't see why so many people are up in arms. I'd expect the rabid anti-government crowd to be shouting their protests from within their mountaintop compounds, but not the average citizen.

    1. Re:I guess I don't understand the public uproar by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

      I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on.

      I thought the same about it if it was for the common good, until I saw it wasn't for the common good. Got to thinking if you take a little pinch of total surveillance in a police state, remove basic rights of the people and add a little touch of corruption and bingo! You have a corporate espionage cash cow the people have not right do anything about.

  36. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't be happy until the senior NSA officials responsible for these programs are charged criminally and given public trials. With great power comes great responsibility and the people in charge at the NSA have forgotten that. They need a harsh reminder to prevent this from happening again.

    "We've changed just enough to mollify the public outrage" isn't acceptable and won't deter future transgressions.

  37. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...all about preserving the NSA ecosystem (read money) that spends billions of dollars of tax payer money on programs we don't want.

    I think Obama's actions in office are disgusting, but remember that it is a bi-partisan (in this regard) Congress that continually votes more and more billions for black-budget agencies that have no congressional oversight.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  38. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're reading is FAIL --- has Gitmo ended(1)? Is Afghanistan over(2)? Did Iraq linger and linger(3)? A passing familiarity with recent events makes it sarcasm as obvious as a cement truck barreling down the freeway.

    (1) Obama did have a plan to close the Gitmo facility, and transfer its practices to the Thomson SuperMax in Illinois, aka Gitmo North. Anyone who can't see the how Obama used the word "close" there in a deceptive manner needs to take some reading comprehension courses. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/

    (2) Obama at one point tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over GWB's numbers. That's the opposite of ending it. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/

    (3) Obama quit Iraq only when the Iraqi government wouldn't extend SOFA. SOFA prevents US soldiers from being tried for crimes committed in Iraq, in Iraqi courts. When Iraq wouldn't extend it and thereby extend the official troop presence, Obama pulled out and everyone gave him credit for peace, when really, he merely failed to make more war.
    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/23/obamas-revisionist-history-on-ending-the-iraq-war-a-lesson-from-the-3rd-presidential-debate/

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  39. Re:So the hell what? by almitydave · · Score: 2

    No, no, no, this proves that 99.97% of the government's applications are totally reasonable and responsible. The system works!

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  40. Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps he was studying it to learn best how to kill it. Know your enemy.

  41. Re:So the hell what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what annoys me about this is obama is focusing on the phone data collection stuff.

    That is deliberate. He'll be seen doing something about that NSA spying that's been in the news without actually doing anything meaningful.

  42. Nice try by garyoa1 · · Score: 2

    Nice try barry but... no cigar. The only people who care about spying on foreign countries (friend OR foe) are the foreign countries. Who likely all do it themselves anyway. Spying on your own people reeks of Stalin and Hitler. (the list goes on)

    Using a court order? No problem since you'd have to introduce reason. Just for the hell of it? Might as well just burn the constitution.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  43. Re:I gotta love it! by alexborges · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is true but Obama did support Bush on all patriot act stuff... he has always supported this kind of stuff... hell, if you can say one thing about the guy is that he doesnt flipflop around this particular issue.

    --
    NO SIG
  44. Sigh.... by ApplePy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" is the only phrase that comes to mind.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  45. What to do with the data by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "While the bulk telephone data remains with the NSA for now, Obama wants those records moved out of government hands, though it is uncertain where, a senior administration official said in briefing reporters on condition of not being identified."

    I'm thinking, some analyst's laptop. Stored in the back of his car while he stuffs a few bills at the kitty kat lounge.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  46. Chicago politician - you were warned. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

    Dead on.

    Obama learned politics in Chicago - the current record holder for corrupt big-city political machines. He is a classic example of a corrupt machine politician.

    The Clintons are also masters of the (less intense) state-level version of the form, having risen to the top in Arkansas, which has been run by a corrupt machine since a Mafia family from New York took it over when the big city got too hot for them. Obama beat them for the Democratic nomination. He has now remade the Federal government on the model of Chigago.

    This was predicted and announced by quite a large number of people well before the election. Nevertheless, he won. So how did this come about?

    There are a number of factors. But IMHO this is the most decisive: The Republican Party's organization, for well over a decade, has been solidly controlled by the Neocon faction (one of the four major and several minor factions of the party). In the last two presidential nomination battles, the Liberty wing (another of the big four), under the inspiration of Ron Paul and drawing members mainly from the young and/or Internet connected, made substantial inroads.

    Their successes in the 2008 nomination process threatened to eventually displace the Neocons' control of the party machinery, as the Neocons had displaced their predecessors (mainly the Christian Right) previously. So in the 2012 nomination the Neocons fought an extremely dirty battle, with large amounts of cheating, rule-breaking, and even incidents of violence (including broken bones). This so alienated the Liberty wing (and some members of other factions) that they refused to support the Neocon's nominee in the general election. Romney lost five states by margins substantially less than the number of people who voted for Ron Paul in those states' primaries, and those states' electoral votes would have swung the general election. It's a good bet that virtually none of the Ron Paul supporters voted for Romney, and even those would have been more that balanced by Republican voters for other candidates who were also appalled at the machine's treatment of their opposition.

    One circulating meme was: "If this is how they behave in the nomination process, how can we allow them to control of the machinery of the Federal Government?" Even KNOWING that Obama would run the Fed like a Chicago-style machine and use it to stomp on the people, letting the Neocon's machine continue to consolidate their control of the major opposition party and drive the big-government non-choice-election system into the foreseeable future could still look like a worse choice.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  47. Re:So the hell what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    So it's ok that we're fighting a bullshit war, because the soldiers are voluntary and are all there because they want to be there and also because they don't want to be brought up on federal charges for desertion or refusing an order. Is that what you're saying?

    What about my brother-in-law, for example. He is a highly trained and highly skilled Marine who is very good at rendering explody things harmless. The government has spent a lot of money making sure that he knows how to do his job, and can do it well. If you give him a bomb, he can remove the trigger. He's served several deployments and has a family. He would rather not go back to Afghanistan. He's inquired with several other agencies, including local police forces. The local police forces tell him that he gets to start at the bottom of the ladder, raking in around $25k per year patrolling a beat, and after 2 years of that he would be eligible to move into the SWAT team as an EOD tech. But he can't afford to spend 2 years making $25k and not using his skills, only to be told later whether he even has a job. He has a family to take care of, after all. So even though the Marines have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars training him, there's nowhere he can even transition to in order to continue his life outside of the military on the same level. Re-enlistment is his only option if he wants to support his family. He doesn't want to fight a BS war, and he doesn't want to enter the bottom ranks of another agency, so what exactly are his choices?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  48. Re:So the hell what? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

    it sounds like he has skills perfectly suited to this war. what would he do if peace broke out? btdubs glad he's ok so far and hope he remains so.

  49. Re:So the hell what? by BobMcD · · Score: 2

    The key to democracy is that voting really does fix problems that most people actually care strongly about.

    Okay. Name one. Name one problem 'fixed' via democracy.

    Where I'm from, problems are 'fixed' by constant action, attention, and effort - not just by voting.

  50. Re:So the hell what? by anagama · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Blah blah bootlicking blah.

    Look at the Verizon order. The only calls it doesn't apply to are those that start and end in a foreign country. It is patently ludicrous to believe that there is probable cause to think that every call that starts, ends, or is wholly contained within the US borders, involves illegal behavior, nor is there any specificity about the evidence sought.

    Any court that would approve such an order in light of the 4th Amendment, is one made up of backbirths like yourself. That's really the heart of it, no matter how many voluminous pages of BS get generated.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  51. Communications Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suspect that being president, he gets to hear mostly from security people, from the armed forces and the like - he has a daily security briefing at least (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Brief). Is the material in this scrutinized by anyone outside the mainstream security establishment? Does he have a daily economics briefing (if he does, I can only imagine what it consists of). Does he have a daily "we heard from the people" briefing? Or even a weekly ACLU briefing?

    No? Then don't be surprised when he tends to give the security folks what they want. They have the high bandwidth conduit to him.

  52. Or a third party by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I read through the whole transcript. There's a lot of fluff in there and lip-service about reform and oversight. Which, hey, is better than coming out swinging claiming that the NSA can do no wrong, which is kinda what we got at the start. The good news is that he understands that we do need people investigating terrorism and that there is a valid reason to keep a leash on those spooks.

    Of the ACTUAL changes he's proposing:
    -National security letters should not be indefinite ("unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy"). Despite the major cop-out, this is a good thing.
    -Asking congress to make an oversight panel in FISC. Which, you know, is asking someone else to watch over your department.
    -Treat foreigners like real people. Hey, that's nice.
    -Outsourcing the master database to a third party.

    Wait, what was that last one?

    I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.

    Well that's a gooooowwwaaaitaminute... That just means someone other than the government is holding EVERYONE'S DATA...

    replaced by one in which the providers, or a third party, retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed.

    HOLY FLIPPING BALLS! What the fuck are you thinking!? You're outsourcing the fucking keys the freaking kingdom to a "third party"!?!?!? Hey, I hear India will do it on the cheap. Maybe China will undercut them.

    On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what's essentially a government function, but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

    No fucking shit sherlock. So then why are you doing that?

  53. Re:Fun Facts by strstr · · Score: 2

    Not true. They actually use radiation on my genitals to fucking rape me, simulate massage, and other abusive things (nerve compression/virtual sex). But this is what others report is happening to them, too.

    Also I was falsely arrested because the police have this technology locally in the area, and they've been using it to hurt me, and I get targeted with them for abuses, false arrests, etc. Yep, so false arrest, inducement of situations, and other abuses. This is what they're doing to people. Just like Dr. Robert Duncan said.

    I am currently going to court and expect a big defense all related to this technologies misuse in the area, with experts.

    My twitter feed is really clean and I have over 1300 followers. Including big names like NBC, some human rights lawyers from Fox News, quite a few media outlets like Der Speigel, CNN, ACLU, etc. I am not saying they all support me, in fact.. I think the ACLU fucking sucks. And most of these places could have blown the door off this with a story, but so far haven't done shit.
    http://twitter.com/toddgiffen