Slashdot Mirror
White House "Privacy Tour" a Flop On Its First Leg At MIT
v3rgEz writes "After the Snowden revelations, President Obama promised greater transparency on how the federal government collects and uses data on its citizens, including a three-leg 'privacy tour' to discuss the balance between security and privacy. Well, the first leg of the tour is up and — surprise, surprise — it's not much of a conversation, with official dodging questions or, in one case, simply walking out of the conference."
There's a video of the workshop at MIT, and the article says not all of it was spent watching politicians be politicians: "The review, led by White House counselor John Podesta ... is not confined to intelligence gathering but is meant also to examine how private entities collect and use mass quantities of personal information, such as health records and Internet browsing habits. On the latter subject, the conversation was robust. Experts from places like MIT, Harvard, Nielsen, and Koa Labs traded pros and cons, and proposed high-tech compromises that could allow people to contribute personal information to big data pools anonymously. "
An Anonymous reader also wrote in that "Outgoing National Security Agency boss General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."
An Anonymous reader also wrote in that "Outgoing National Security Agency boss General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
Hmm..... sounds a lot like prior restraint, doesn't it? Someone leaks some information
that the gummint doesn't want known, and so the press can't publish the leak? This is
pretty scary...
Good luck with that, Gen. Alexander.
"Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"?
You've got to remember that these are just simple data farmers. These are people from the government. The common clay of the new domestic spying apparatus. You know... morons.
Also, this Keith Alexander guy: just what a cunt.
Media Leaks aren't well liked by people doing dirty, underhanded things. In the case of the Military they never like the press publishing anything that shows er well maybe their soldiers wiping out a village of innocent civilians or in this case when the Government is caught spying on everybody, leveraging secret courts for permission while not disclosing their full intent and omitting or outright lying to congressional oversight about what they did. Sure the press can be an "annoyance" to those who would continue to subvert our liberties in the name of preserving them. General Alexander has demonstrated that he's an idiot with a Star Trek fetish and because his clandestine world is now mostly in the open, he's crying foul? Sorry I'm of the mind that General Alexander needs to be put in the stocks in the Washington Mall for three days and I want the rotten tomato concession.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
It's so sad to see these sociopaths consolidate power and further desecrate the Constitution. But I just don't what to do about it.. give money to the ACLU - check. Support Rand Paul - check -- but he doesn't stand a chance.
I feel like I'm watching a friend die from inoperable cancer.
Reminds me of discussing Beta with Slashdot...
"and proposed high-tech compromises that could allow people to contribute personal information to big data pools anonymously." -- and why, pray tell, would I willing give all my personal data "anonymously" to some massive database run by a corporation (likely with government oversight) that almost certainly ties my data to "unique identifiers" to ensure the integrity of their database?
Or am I just supposed to nod stupidly and send them all my records....?
This makes me feel so despondent...
The government is taking a giant shit on the Constitution. Freedom of the press my ass!
And we're gonna give them a kill-switch for our phones? We're letting them strip away all our rights...
I feel like the frog...except I see it coming...
Damn, we are so fucked.
Damn...
Obama outed his atrocious attitude toward privacy back when he "halted his campaign" to run back to Washington to vote for FISA.
I'm considered a "far leftie" in the US, in case you think this comment came from the GOP noise machine.
These people are liars publicly, so why are we listening to their "best practices" ideas about privacy when we KNOW we don't trust them?
I find it interesting that I have to find out what is happening in this country, from the British newspapers. Where is the NYT or Washington Post, in reporting what is going on, and how we are losing our rights?
Has this asshole ever read the 1st amendment???
Andy writes, at The technical aspects of privacy, "The first of three public workshops kicked off a conversation with the federal government on data privacy in the US... hearing news all the time about new technical assaults on individual autonomy, I found the circumscribed scope of the conference disappointing. "
davecb@spamcop.net
Alexander says that the media has not the ability for judgment of surveillance programs. "... ' journalists have no standing when it comes to national security issues. They don’t know how to weigh the fact of what they’re giving out and saying, is it in the nation’s interest to divulge this,' Alexander said."
Are the spooks (which most of the secuity appartus isn't anyway) the ONLY people who know how to judge government activity? I don't think so. What this clown probably means is more like 'we want unfettered power and we don't anyone to see us taking it and using it.' That being the case, I think the journalists see things pretty clearly and have made the correct assessment.
If it's supposed to be security concerning the nation, don't the citizens of the nation in question have standing, if it's a free, democracy? If not, explain to me who does. Without double speak or scaremongering.
aka The Alien and Sedition Act 2.0
Hey everyone! Welcome to our Privacy tour! Let's meet everyone in the room! Hi, what's your name? Eric? I think we have a picture of Eric's dong... yes, here it is! We got this while you were Yahoo web chatting. Who else is here? Dave? Do we... yes we have a picture of Dave's dong. This one wasn't too hard to get, since he uses Chat Roulette. Who else do we have here? Sam? Sam was quite a difficult one, but we finally got a picture of his dong after our agents set up a gay men playing with olive oil site... hey... where's everyone going?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The classification system hasn't existed for hundreds of years? In any meaningful way the current classification system is probably less than 70 years old. Before that there certainly were times where secrets were kept, but only during times of war and even then only things specifically pertinent to military strategy (number of weapons, troop movements, etc). Today we have a perpetual "state of war" and "classified" information can include 50 year old intelligence budgets, presidential visitor logs, illegal activities, reports on defense spending.
To reinterpret Keith Alexander's quote: "Outgoing National Security Agency boss General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."
I am tired of the press getting everybody up in a tizzy about the fact that I buttfuck all the citizens. Once legislation passes allowing me to buttfuck the press, I can get back to buttfucking all the citizens in peace. Hey, like I said, I am an optimist.
They don't need to do anything but keep conning people into voting for them. The constitution forbids a lot of things that both federal and state governments continue to do anyways. The trick is to rewrite the dictionary and common sense to suit your needs. It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society, however supreme court judges have said that the definition of "limited time" is infinity -1. The federal government only has the right to become involved in state/local activities when it effects "interstate commerce", so "interstate commerce" is interpreted to mean basically anything that exists, even choosing to grow/not grow a plant on your own property for use only on your property falls under "interstate commerce" according to the government.
That's the oath I gave when I was 21 and I meant every word of it. I still do. Who the fuck are you talking about? The military is run by civilians you moron. They don't make a move without civilian approval, dolt. That's the way it was originally set up and hopefully it'll remain that way long after I'm dead and buried.
Now what should scare you is the civilian shitheads running the asylum. Those fuckers are batshit crazy.
That was quite possibly the best adaptaion of a Blazing Saddles classic line I've run across in a long time.
+5 just for the laughs alone.
Sure...that's why when listing reasons for secession SLAVERY was the reason listed you DUMBASS. For Pete's sake at least know what the hell you're talking about before you type. The entire war was about slavery, because removing slavery would have and did destroy the south's "capital" investments.
Top 5 reasons for the civil war...every one of them touches on slavery, so shut your stupid type hole because you're a moron.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
First state to secede cited SLAVERY as a cause. FFS have half a brain and know what you're talking about before just making stupid made up shit up.
South Carolina cited the federal government's refusal to enforce the Fugitive SLAVE Act as their reason for secession you complete moron.
I would assume the legislation itself is secret.