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."
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...
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
I guess the answer depends on what side of the Mason Dixon line you live on.
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"
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
The moment the political class concerned itself more with the accumulation of,power and money for a few, rather than say running the country in a balanced manner for the greater good of all its citizens. Media leaks mean Informed Citizens, which may threaten corrupt power slightly more than if the citizens were left in the dark.
1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years
no threats
no panics
no releasing classified info
Bullshit Politician-speak: "We're making real constructive advances in improving national security and our ability to fight terrorism, through planned media leaks legislation."
Non-bullshit Translation: "We're going to start throwing reporters in prison if they tell the public about any of the evil, unconstitutional shit we're doing in secret."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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?
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
The press started working for the government. Not sure when, but the media merged with the government at least during the Iraq invasion. They were all instrumental in starting the war. Once it got going, they fired anyone who dared question whether the war was a good idea.
The white house press corp pretty clearly works for the white house. They take the propaganda verbatim and publish it.
I think that mindset explains why the government thinks media leak legislation is appropriate. They see their employees as misbehaving. For that matter, the media masters are probably accepting it in exchange for goodies. "Tell you what, Obama, we'll accept more muzzling of our reporters. That will go for these online news source up and comers double, right? And you won't have a problem with Rupert Murdoch/whoever taking a complete monopoly over all news, right? He's promised us new mansions."
Bullshit Politician-speak: "reporters lack the ability to properly analyze"
Bullshit Politician-speak: "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!"
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.
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
I guess the answer depends on what side of the Mason Dixon line you live on.
And, for those on the South side of the line, the color of your skin.
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?
FTFA:
The specific legislation to which Alexander referred was unclear. Angela Canterbury, the policy director for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said she was unaware of any such bill. Neither was Steve Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Do not fall for the propaganda that the civil war was about slavery. Read up about it and you will find the north had slaves also. In fact slavery was already phasing out in all locations due to economic reasons, the invention of the cotton gin being a big one. The real reason the civil war was fought was to stop the southern states from leaving the union. It was the first big power grab by the federal government. After that point we were no longer a collection of states that ruled themselves but worked together in union. Instead we became one country which is ruled by people who have no knowledge or interest in the local conditions of any area.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
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