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...
"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"
That's why the ass said it while outgoing -- he knew he'd be fired.
"They were right to detain and hassle (journalists)". I'll side with a journalist, even yellow scumbuckets, over people deliberately building tools of tyrrany which, history shows, will inevitably be abused in the service of dictatorship.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years
no threats
no panics
no releasing classified info
"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....?
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.
Since when has the military or the immense national security titan given a fuck about respecting the Constitution? Who exactly do you think is going to stop them? The Congress that doesn't even really want to know what's going on and happily puts a rubber stamp on any legislation with "national security" written on it? The spineless Supreme Court that also rubber-stamps everything and has no means of enforcing their weak-ass rulings anyway?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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?
Especially when that classified information shows government wrongdoing and ignoring the Constitution.
Sorry, but malfeasance on the behalf of the government is trumped by the need of citizens to know their politicians are ignoring the law.
This is just trying to prevent this information from coming to light.
Has this asshole ever read the 1st amendment???
1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years ... no releasing classified info
You are mistaken. See The Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg as the iconic example case.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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
I recently had a thought that might help - organize election-day festivals near polling places, something interesting to do to tempt the politically disillusioned and apathetic to come out and enjoy some good music and food. And since they're right next door anyway, encourage them to go vote for *any* third party candidates. Over half the country doesn't vote in most elections, if we can get them organized to "Vote Out the Sock Puppets" we could sweep the election, and maybe, just maybe, start things moving in a more populist direction. If nothing else some notable victories could empower a more dramatic showing in the next election. Maybe even inspire some honest well-meaning people to try their hand at politics.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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?
1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years
Wrong. Read it. No limitations are listed. All this means is that the government is ignoring it, and has been for a long time.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society
As far as I know, patents last 20 years. Copyright is what lasts a truly ridiculous period of time, but it's still technically limited.
And that's the problem. While there are definitely many cases of the government violating the constitution, the constitution is poorly written and doesn't put enough limits on the government's power.
Thank you Dave Raggett