Slashdot Mirror


The Department of Homeland Security Needs Its Own Edward Snowden

blottsie writes: Out of all the U.S. government agencies, the Department of Homeland Security is one of the least transparent. As such, the number of Freedom of Information Act requests it receives have doubled since 2008. But the DHS has only become more adamant about blocking FOIA requests over the years. The problem has become so severe that nothing short of an Edward Snowden-style leak may be needed to increase transparency at the DHS.

122 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. i bet by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure there are hundreds of people who are dying to be criminalized without due process and live in Russia just to be an American patriot.

    1. Re:i bet by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Hundreds is a small number, I am sure there are hundreds willing and capable of doing this. Hundreds work for the DHS, probably not, but you only one of them working and having access in the DHS

    2. Re:i bet by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do they need to dig through all those people? I hear Edward Snowden himself has concluded his most recent assignment at the NSA, and has government experience and a security clearance to boot. My information may be a little out of date, though.

    3. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's just something funny about the idea that our civilian population needs to create an informal spy agency to help it spy on its own government - that's essentially what we're proposing here.

    4. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My gramps told me about that, wasn't it associated with some weird diary-keeping movement called "journalism", or something?

    5. Re:i bet by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      UN Investigator: We heard this man wasn't given due process.

      Warlord: Nonsense! He was duly tried by me and sentenced to death.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      There's just something funny about the idea that our civilian population needs to create an informal spy agency to help it spy on its own government - that's essentially what we're proposing here.

      Let me make this perfectly clear. There is not a single fucking thing about that proposition that is funny whatsoever.

      Those who died for our freedoms we're losing aren't laughing.

    7. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When was Snowden sentenced to anything?

    8. Re:i bet by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frank Herbert wrote in a few of his sf novels about a Bureau of Sabotage that did essentially that, gumming up the efforts of other government agencies

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:i bet by rockabilly · · Score: 1

      There's just something funny about the idea that our civilian population needs to create an informal spy agency to help it spy on its own government - that's essentially what we're proposing here.

      Let me make this perfectly clear. There is not a single fucking thing about that proposition that is funny whatsoever.

      Those who died for our freedoms we're losing aren't laughing.

      I think he said it rhetorically.

    10. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowden, if he just stayed in America, would in all likelihood not have received a fair and impartial trial. Though this is ultimately hypothetical (since he has not submitted himself for arrest), let's set all political bullshitting aside and take an honest assessment of the truth.

      His revelations were extremely embarrassing to the most powerful institutions, and the most powerful people, in the American government. He has turned popular American sentiment hostile to the greater part of governance. What he has revealed could, in a fair and impartial legal system, land some of our own leaders in jail. And it is precisely these leaders who have already shown that they are corrupt.

      There is nothing in America that would protect him from their wrath. The American people, whom he benefited, will not return the favor and risk themselves to defend him if the government decides to retaliate.

      That is the reality currently faced by any would-be whistle blower. The legal protections promised to whistle blowers are, currently, nothing but hot air.

    11. Re:i bet by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      I guess she could run to Abu Dhabi instead.

    12. Re:i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those who died for our freedoms we're losing aren't laughing.

      Well, yes, because they are dead. Meanwhile there are several very large groups of people that have sworn an oath to stop these bad things from happening and are failing miserably. Nobody expects congresscritters not to lie, but all those people in the armed forces and law enforcement being called heroes while breaking their oaths is quite disappointing but not unexpected.

    13. Re:i bet by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Frank Herbert wrote in a few of his sf novels about a Bureau of Sabotage that did essentially that, gumming up the efforts of other government agencies

      Hold it, don't we have that ? I am fairly certain is congress's job to gum up the entire society.

    14. Re:i bet by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they give billions to trillions of dollars to make sure some government agencies work well.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:i bet by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To "pull a Snowden" someone would first of all have to have some guts, conscience and a deep love for the values the United States of America once stood for.

      Where in the DHS would you find someone like that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:i bet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They are not failing.

      Failing would imply they're trying.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:i bet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      By that definition the US founding fathers would be terrorists, I get it?

      Not judging, just trying to keep up with the lingo du jour.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:i bet by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I wasn't ware that Vietnam Soldiers (for example) passed sedition laws.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    19. Re:i bet by The+Technomancer · · Score: 1

      I'd tell you, but I got a National Security Letter telling me I can't.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      -- Arthur C. Clarke

    20. Re:i bet by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'd tell you, but I got a National Security Letter telling me I can't.

      Epic

      Fail

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:i bet by davester666 · · Score: 1

      they are just following the orders of those who are failing.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:i bet by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like incitement to sedition to me!

    23. Re:i bet by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are hundreds of people who are dying to be criminalized without due process and live in Russia just to be an American patriot.

      There are thousands who are willing to give their lives for 'the American way of life' so yes, there might be more than you would think willing to sacrifice to protect Americans from their own government.

      At least, we can hope.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    24. Re:i bet by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I believe the parent meant it was "funny" in the same sense that sour milk tastes "funny".

  2. Sounds like Sci-Fi by weilawei · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Sounds like Sci-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Better men than you have tried!" snarled Clinton Watt. "I quote paragraph four, section ninety-one of the Semantic Revision to the Constitution," said saboteur extraordinary Jorj X. McKie. "'The need for obstructive processes in government having been established as one of the chief safeguards for human rights, the question of immunities must be defined with extreme precision.'"

  3. Or, and just hear me out... by mythosaz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Or, they could become less obstinate in blocking FOIA requests.

    The thermonuclear option isn't always a good idea.

    1. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, they could become less obstinate in blocking FOIA requests.

      Why not have a herd of magical pink unicorns travel to DC and explain the problem to them. That seems like a more likely solution.

    2. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      You think Snowden 2.0 is more likely than a judge forcing them to respond to FOIA requests?

      To each their own, I suppose.

    3. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by bistromath007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...Yes? Also, it's not like there's really oversight effective enough to ensure they even comply with a judge's ruling.

    4. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Righteous anger isn't always as Righteous or helpful as you'd originally thought. That's why we have a constitution, bill of rights, etc... To protect us from the whims of an angry fickle public when short term popular opinion may not be in the best interest of the long term health of the country. Amending the constitution takes a long time for a reason. DHS and other 3 letter agencies can only use 9/11 to subjugate us for so long... eventually the fear will fade, and get replaced outrage. History will not be kind to those that built, supported and continued agencies like the DHS and the NSA.

    5. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > You think Snowden 2.0 is more likely than a judge forcing them to respond to FOIA requests?

      Yes, I do. The NSA has been ignoring FOIA for decades, what would possibly make the top-heavy bureaucracy at the TSA more responsive?

    6. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      You think Snowden 2.0 is more likely than a judge forcing them to respond to FOIA requests?

      Depends. Does the judge in question have an army on hand to enforce that ruling?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Will any judge be allowed to?

      Or will it only go through the FISA courts, where there's even less transparency. And always ruled against.

      To each their own, delusion has its grandeur.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I wish you were right, but suspect you are wrong. The 2nd amendment was essentially abandoned after the Whiskey rebellion highlighted the ineffectiveness of the militias, and the British burning DC to the ground finished it off. They never bothered to repeal it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, that, or if that fails... what was that thermonuclear option again? It sounds like it could solve things. Or dissolve, at least.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by khallow · · Score: 1

      They never bothered to repeal it.

      Meaning it has never been abandoned.

    11. Re:Or, and just hear me out... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the framers, who feared a large standing army and thus wrote the 2nd amendment. We currently have the most impressive standing army that the world has ever known.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Dismantle DHS by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still don't get why we still have this elaborate subsidy for a bunch of glorified mall cops.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Dismantle DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the TSA, not the DHS.

      That said, I don't know why the DHS exists either, who the fuck thinks of America as the "Homeland" ?

      That seems like some idea out of a fascist nationalism.

      Couldn't they come up with a better name?

    2. Re:Dismantle DHS by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      The fact that they came up with that name and didn't see any irony in it tells you a lot. Remember, "they hate us for our freedom".

    3. Re:Dismantle DHS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Created under GWB, and the left hated it, extended under BHO, and the left goes silent. I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Dismantle DHS by slashdice · · Score: 2

      The left only hated the ban on unionization.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    5. Re:Dismantle DHS by Xenx · · Score: 1

      That, and the acronym BoA would of been too positive an influence on Bank of America's image.

    6. Re: Dismantle DHS by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      Principle is hypergolic with politics.

    7. Re:Dismantle DHS by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      A BHO is essentially the same thing as an extension, that is just what Microsoft calls it.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    8. Re:Dismantle DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why is the reality distortion field so strong that hating the tyrannical government, when a right-winger is in power, gets you branded a "leftist"? When a leftist is in power, you're branded a "right-winger"? I hated the DHS under Bush and I think his administration was an abomination. I hate the DHS under Obama and think his administration is an abomination. When I would say the former, 2002-2008, I was branded as partisan pinko commie leftist scum. When I say the latter 2008-present, I'm branded as a racist redneck partisan 1% loving corporatist scum.
       
      It's really getting tiring. I can't vocalize that I disagree with anything this administration has done without hearing "Well, Bush started it! Where were you when Bush was running over our rights?" I was speaking out against it just like I am now, except back then, they called me you.

    9. Re: Dismantle DHS by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you have to explain what "hypergolic" means. You'd probably get more traction with non-geeks using a matter/antimatter analogy.

    10. Re:Dismantle DHS by alexo · · Score: 1

      Created under GWB, and the left hated it, extended under BHO, and the left goes silent. I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?

      You don't have any Left to speak of, there's Right and Even-More-Right.

    11. Re:Dismantle DHS by AndrewBuck · · Score: 2

      Quite the opposite in fact. In my opinion when your government starts making lists of "the bad people" then I think it is your moral duty to make sure you are one of the people on the list. From the recent NSA leaks (this one may not actually be from Snowden, which is interesting) the NSA considers anyone who uses or runs Tor to be an extremist, so apparently I make the list twice; just glad to be doing my part. I also installed PGP and use encryption whenever possible, although that is rare because I only know a few other people using it, and most of the communicating I do with them is on a mailing list anyway so encryption doesn't really work. Still I do what I can to throw up a bit of "chaff" to make their job just that little bit harder.

      You posted your comment anonymously (or as anon as you can be on slashdot), but I won't post mine that way. My government knows who I am and what I think and I couldn't be happier. Fuck the motherfuckers.

      -AndrewBuck

    12. Re:Dismantle DHS by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So ... we appease them by eliminating our freedoms?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: Dismantle DHS by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As long as politicians explode, who would argue against it?

      Just how do you add principle to congress?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Dismantle DHS by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But certainly. How about Security Squad?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Dismantle DHS by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Who the fsck do you think you are kidding? The left go silent? I don't see a single post in favour of them. Do you really think only those on "the right" know how to post on Slashdot?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    16. Re:Dismantle DHS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      When you have an Empire, you must distinguish the "Homeland" from the "Colonies".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    17. Re:Dismantle DHS by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1st. Left? What left?
      2nd. Created under right and the left hated it, extended under left and the right hated it.
      So you still think you have some say in this?

      Only a fool will think that if you do the same thing over and over again, you will get a different result.
      Voting R one time and D the next time and then R again and back to D is not doing things differently. Building a guilotine and off with their heads if they do not perform as promissed is doing things differently.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:Dismantle DHS by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, how I wish I hadn't used my modpoints up earlier today!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re: Dismantle DHS by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      It's mine, thanks.

    20. Re:Dismantle DHS by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?

      When it gets you elected. Because in that case, those who don't put principle aside for politics, don't get elected.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Dismantle DHS by coofercat · · Score: 1

      ...and be sure to spread that malware that uses Tor for command and control. Even your elderly neighbour could be a terrorist! Add to the fact that she gives sweets to the kids that come around asking if they can get their ball back from her garden, and you've got a paedo-terrorist. They're the worst kind of all.

    22. Re:Dismantle DHS by Chas · · Score: 1

      That's the TSA, not the DHS.

      I know the difference. I said "Subsidy for glorified mall cops."

      The TSA is a subsidy for wannabe mall cops.

      There is a difference (though not much of one).

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    23. Re:Dismantle DHS by Chas · · Score: 1

      If I have to subsidize the fuckers, have them put to something USEFUL. Like (re)building roads.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    24. Re:Dismantle DHS by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Created under GWB, and the left hated it, extended under BHO, and the left goes silent. I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?

      More like you're just deaf.

      I'm left of center and I was for Obama but the only thing I can say for him over Bush is that he's not literally stupid.

      There is no more left and right in American politics.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    25. Re:Dismantle DHS by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      1st. Left? What left?
      2nd. Created under right and the left hated it, extended under left and the right hated it.
      So you still think you have some say in this?

      Only a fool will think that if you do the same thing over and over again, you will get a different result.
      Voting R one time and D the next time and then R again and back to D is not doing things differently. Building a guilotine and off with their heads if they do not perform as promissed is doing things differently.

      Have to wonder how many supporters of anyone other than R and D are going to be on this watchlist.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    26. Re:Dismantle DHS by AndrewBuck · · Score: 1

      It was a bit clumsily worded. I meant "the opposite of hiding", so I was not saying that you want to do the opposite of hide, not the opposite of what you suggested. In any case, clumsy wording or not, glad to hear that you understood my message and are joining the effort.

      -AndrewBuck

    27. Re:Dismantle DHS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I rather doubt Bush was stupid as the Left made him out to be. And I rather doubt Obama is as smart as the Left wants him to be.

      What I can tell you, is that as bad as GWB was (awful), he at least tried to pretend to do his job, while Obama seems to be going from Fundraiser to Vacation to Fundraiser to Golf to HipHop to Basketball, while the world is burning around him.

      Rome is burning, and he is the new Nero.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    28. Re:Dismantle DHS by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I rather doubt Bush was stupid as the Left made him out to be. And I rather doubt Obama is as smart as the Left wants him to be.

      What I can tell you, is that as bad as GWB was (awful), he at least tried to pretend to do his job, while Obama seems to be going from Fundraiser to Vacation to Fundraiser to Golf to HipHop to Basketball, while the world is burning around him.

      Rome is burning, and he is the new Nero.

      You didn't actually pay attention to my response and you choose instead to continue to rant about left and right.

      I'll say it again. There is no more left and right. If you think that there is then you, along with too many Americans, are caught up in a waste of time nonsense game of who gets to pretend to have power.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  5. Just shut it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That would fix a lot of problems.

  6. Yes, but more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every single government department that has power over other people needs a watchdog or oversight committee.

    1. Re:Yes, but more by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Every single government department that has power over other people needs a watchdog or oversight committee.

      It's called the judicial branch. Unfortunately, they suck at their jobs.

    2. Re:Yes, but more by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Then you need someone to watch the watchdog and oversee the oversight committee, turtles all the way down, and up...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Likely to make them less transparent by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem has become so severe that nothing short of an Edward Snowden-style leak may be needed to increase transparency at the DHS.

    Such a leak is just as likely to have exactly the opposite effect. The Snowden leak hasn't exactly made the NSA any more forthcoming regarding their activities. No, the ONLY thing that is going to force DHS to be more transparent in the long run is a motivated Congress. Oversight of the executive branch is after all their job. But since the Dems and Reps are so busy trying to grab power they can't be bothered. The judiciary is no help since they have their head stuck in the sand over standing that they are worse than useless. So the executive branch can do whatever the hell they like without consequence until at least one of the other branches of government starts doing their damn job. All a leak is likely to do is show them what they need to do the be even less transparent than they already are.

    1. Re:Likely to make them less transparent by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...a motivated Congress...

      Congress is already motivated by that which brings the greatest rewards. Who is going to motivate them to change anything?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. People unclear on the concept by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point of being the secret police is that they're the SECRET fucking police. We've allowed literally half of the government agencies to be consolidated under one uber-agency whose charter is some nebulous bullshit about "keeping the fatherland safe". And then people are SURPRISED when it follows the example of the Gestapo and the KGB.

  9. Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch. by ScooterComputer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The simple way to fix this is just shut the DHS down. It was a bureaucracy conceived in panic: poorly engineered and even more poorly implemented. Just shut it down. Turn all the records over to Congress and start over.

    Simple reboot. Fix the glitch. Just like Milton's payroll issue.

    --
    Scott
    "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
  10. I know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still don't get why we still have this elaborate subsidy for a bunch of glorified mall cops.

    Because the American public is ill informed and they do not want to be better informed.

    They watch the news and have "facts" spoon fed to them by people with their own agenda.

    When a politician actually says, "Hold on here! We need to think about this police state crap!" they are labeled as being "soft on terror" and the public being incapable of having a thought that isn't planted there by the media, goes along. And people are totally afraid because of the irresponsible and incompetent media.

    In the article, an AMERICAN of Libyan decent was held without cause by the border thugs. I assure you that many Americans have no problem with that because she is an Arab - who cares what the ramifications are on our society and freedoms. See, we the stupid people only want freedom for people like us. The others can rot in jail.

    So, mix in unwarranted fear, bigotry and stupidity and we have the DHS.

    1. Re:I know. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      They watch the news and have "facts" spoon fed to them by people with their own agenda.

      It's actually a little bit worse than that. We could all be spoon-fed "facts" saying the DHS is terrible, and we could all agree it should be dismantled. And then the DHS will politely go about its way while the rest of us do nothing. While we very much enjoy judgmentally shaking our heads at the terrible things that go on in this world, very few people are willing to do anything about it.

  11. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    Fix the glitch. Just like Milton's payroll issue.

    That didn't end well, iirc.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  12. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    Turn the it over to Congress? Yes, let's swap DHS for a bunch of do-nothing industry and wealthy donor shills. What could possibly go wrong?

  13. Re:Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like you think that secrecy which is used to commit outright crimes in your name, is needed.

    Here's an idea. I'm going to punch you square in the face. Then I'm going to make it illegal to tell anyone about it, because it would harm my reputation and my professional job is to be the head of a big governmental agency.

    But if that agency knew I punched you square in the face, I'd get publicly in trouble, which would make my agency look bad, which would cut their funding, which would mean they cannot protect people as well, thus my punching you in the face will be kept secret in the name of national security.

    Forget the fact I'm not supposed to be punching you in the first place...... what matters is now that I *have* punched you in the face, we need to all keep super secret about it or else my agency would look bad.

    That is the secrecy you protect so vigorously.

  14. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Fix the glitch. Just like Milton's payroll issue.

    That didn't end well, iirc.

    He got his stapler back in the end.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  15. Are you fucking kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck in the right mind would whistleblow against the US Government again? So what if what Snowden did was in Americans' best interest, the Powers that Be told us that he was wrong, he was nothing but a hacker, a traitor, a spy for Russia, and the American Public bought it hook, line, and sinker. Good fucking luck getting someone as courageous as Snowden to make a difference again.

    1. Re:Are you fucking kidding? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Guess someone took hook, line and sinker the spin that the US population doesn't support what Snowden did...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Are you fucking kidding? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hate to pull the Godwin here, but it fits.

      People during WW2 who dared to help those that were prosecuted for no other crime than being who they are were living in constant danger. Not just of being arrested or inconvenienced, but of being killed. Along with their family. Still, people did just that. By far not many, but surprisingly many. They sure as hell could not hope for fame and glory (especially during the first years when it sure looked like Germany would win that war), actually all they could expect is that sooner or later they'll be betrayed and end their life in a concentration camp.

      Sometimes some things are more important than your convenience.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Are you fucking kidding? by Rashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Years ago I asked my uncle, who was a teenager during WW2, if he knew of people in our village that had hidden refugees during the war. As you mentioned, this was a very dangerous thing to do. He had to think long and hard, but managed to remember two or three families. Next I asked him if he knew about young men who had gone to fight on the German side. He immediately named about a dozen, but added that most did so because the pay was good and some simply went because they would get enough decent food to eat. At that moment I had the sad realization that those who would oppress us if they could, are living quietly among us. They live in every street, everywhere. As soon as an opportunity like WW2 arises, they will jump in and become the oppressors. But heroes are a lot harder to find.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    4. Re:Are you fucking kidding? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      But heroes are a lot harder to find.

      True heroes don't brag about it

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Are you fucking kidding? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Especially when bragging gets you sent to a concentration camp, any of the illegal prison camps in Afghanistan right now, or political asylum in Russia.

  16. Fat chance by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Snowden was able to do what he did at the NSA because he had the wealth to be able to afford to run away. Most people who work in government jobs don't have that luxury.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Fat chance by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      two words:

      anonymous dropbox

      Anyone dumb enough to try that under the expectation that the DHS wouldn't be watching for it would find themselves quickly on a one-way trip to Gitmo.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  17. Amend FOIA by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem here is that we need Congress to amend the Freedom of Information Act. DHS can hide the way they do because they can claim a "national security" exemption to FOIA - one of the very few things (apart from ongoing criminal investigations and ongoing collective bargaining, among a handful of others) that can be used to block a FOIA request. The national security exemption also tends to be the most often abused, especially by police departments and other law enforcement agencies. A lot of the time, the agencies know they won't win when the people requesting the records appeal, but it's a handy way to stonewall records requests right out of the gate.

    What should happen is that FOIA should be amended to make it clear when the national security exemption does and does not apply, so that it can't be used to hide behind anymore.

    1. Re:Amend FOIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the person declaring National Security must do so under penalty of perjury and all such records must be sent for judicial review.

  18. Re:Just to clarify by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    You mean someone willing to publish virtually every aspect of how we protect ourselves from terrorism without any independent review, oversight or responsibility?

    Hopefully the great mass of irony in your statement squished your brain as it rolled out of your mouth.

  19. the evil they do is always front and center by nimbius · · Score: 5, Informative

    this is the do everything forever department created after september 2001 and designed to be an intractable part of the amorphous war on terror. to date its various wings include
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: so bogged down by congress it can barely stock the staplers and ink the stamp pads
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection: charged with manning our immigration checkpoints that exist, paradoxically, nearly 100 miles inside our borders as well as directly upon them. congress pumps money into these guys, who cant seem to go more than a week without accidentally killing someone across the border.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency: home of "secret death camps" for rabid neo-conservatives, and for the rest of us a red flag which completely exposed the bumbling incompetence of the DHS after Hurricane Katrina. their latest campaign has been telling people through billboards about the need to make an emergency plan. As if to tacitly admit theyre just as inept and meaningless as they were 9 years ago
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: packs undocumented immigrants into shanty camps, and really thats about it. Completely neutered after NAFTA for its customs enforcement, and just as paralyzed by congress. Arizona mistakenly began shipping their "illegals" to ICE facilities only to find ICE released them, as it isnt a magic button to get the sheriff re-elected.
    Transportation Security Administration home of the freedom grope, these guys are highschool drop outs and police academy rejects itching for a reason to ruin your summer.
    U.S. Coast Guard there is no conceiveable reason this agency should not be under control of the pentagon, or something more relevant to its mission, but this is the seventh department its been reassigned to since its creation and like the fat kid in gym class, it probably wont be very permanent.
    National Protection and Programs Directorate purportedly does something with "cybersecurity" but its amorphous enough to land firmly in the camp of cabinet level private toilets designed to pitch federal tax dollars into. mostly a 2.5 billion dollar per year dole for government contractors.
    U.S. Secret Service they guard the president and for some mind boggling reason, investigate counterfeit currency.

    TL;DR: the DHS was designed with no one particular in mind. the first thing our president told us after 9/11 was to "go shopping" and in order to bolster that order from the commander in chief, the consumer confidence index in 2001 got its own department into which lands of home would ostensibly become secure as if by magic. its scope is so broadly defined and its mission so incongruent that it cannot possibly function in any meaningful fashion. Its not off-the-map like the NSA, rather, its largesse makes it incapable of escaping scrutiny.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the evil they do is always front and center by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "U.S. Secret Service they guard the president and for some mind boggling reason, investigate counterfeit currency. "

      No, they investigate counterfeit currency and for an accidental reason guard the president. At the time that Congress requested a protection detail for the President, the Secret Service was the largest law enforcement agency at the federal level. The FBI had not yet been created.

  20. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by biek · · Score: 1

    Fix the glitch. Just like Milton's payroll issue.

    That didn't end well, iirc.

    He got salt with his margarita.

  21. Institution of FUD by nickmalthus · · Score: 1

    Homeland Security is an institution based in FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The more they panic the populace the more Congress will capitulate and grant them ever increasing power and funding. Secrecy grants them a shield to deflect all criticism: in the event of an attack they can simply state they were underfunded or were not granted the powers they needed to protect the people regardless of whatever the truth may be and no one except initiated would be the wiser. Instead of confronting terrorism using our well accepted and established system of Justice we all get thrown into a state of complete panic when someone attacks us for political motivations. Last year 1.6 million American's died of cancer. Why don't we spend trillions of dollars combating a real threat instead of something that may kill 1 in 20 million Americans?

    Ironically the point of terrorism is to effect political change based on the psychological impact of an attack. Congress seems to pay no heed to this as they accelerate the decline of America into a police state, perhaps to the desire of the terrorist boogieman. Certainly anyone who has read a history book knows what happens when a people grant their government extraordinary powers to combat a perceived threat: a dictator arises and they lose all their liberties. I speak for no one besides myself but I would rather take my chances with being killed by a malcontent than risk losing everything precious in my life to totalitarian government.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  22. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    And Milton could set the building on fire before he leaves.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  23. So, America *needs* traitors? by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight; because this article is making my mind blow..... When Mr Snowden did what he did, the comments here on Slashdot both hailed him as hero and decried him as a traitor. This is still unresolved.

    And now we're saying that we NEED to have a Snowden-style event to have any kind of transparency at DHS? So, Americans need to give up their Hawaiian gymnast girlfriends, go on the lam, be hunted by every three-letter agency, have to move to Russia, have a price put on their heads, and still be hated by 50% of America who'd want to thrown them in a deep dark hole for the rest of their lives without a trial..... All so *you* can have some nice "transparency" at the DHS?????

    Sorry, but if that's what's required, PLEASE NOW ADMIT THAT AMERICA IS A FASCIST POLICE STATE, and that if the price of freedom is so high that most people aren't willing to give up everything for that freedom, we have become land of the sheep.

    Also, if you feel that's what's required; do it yourself; or start a revolution to take your country back from the oligarchs that have made into a greedy-self-serving-piece-of-shit-excuse for a nation. Mr Snowdens are few and far between and you're lucky to have the ones you have.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:So, America *needs* traitors? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      1914? Are you high?

      Businesses are so intertwined internationally that it is virtually impossible to start a war with anyone without offending at least half the businesses in your country. And that's something no government on this planet can afford.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:So, America *needs* traitors? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How's that in any way remotely comparable to 1914? Those are local conflicts, and if any "global player" is involved, then it is hardly anything more than a "let's stomp them" action being performed 'cause they didn't do what their masters liked.

      Name ONE SINGLE conflict since WW2 where two equal forces with global impact clashed.

      War's so 20th century. Bullying (a powerful entity beating a powerless one back to the stone age) and terrorism (a powerless entity instilling fear in a powerful one) are the types of conflict for this age.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Homeland Security vs CDC by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You all remember the recent smallpox discovery at the NIH ... well it turns out they found quite a number of samples of various other things, and their disposition was somewhat odd: some of them went to the FDA, the CDC, or were destroyed, but a number of samples (they didn't say what) were sent to Homeland Security.

    WTF?!

    What possible business can H.S. have with vials of deadly diseases?

    'The original smallpox samples, along with ten others that were unclearly labeled, were securely transferred to the CDC’s high-containment facility in Atlanta., the FDA said, and 32 other vials have already been destroyed. The remaining 279 were transferred to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Bioforensic Analysis Center “for safeguarding.”'

    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/1...

    1. Re:Homeland Security vs CDC by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What possible business can H.S. have with vials of deadly diseases?

      If there is a god, they wanted to take a good look inside whether the stuff is still in there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Homeland Security vs CDC by phorm · · Score: 1

      Agent Smith, we need to be on the watch for these pathogens entering our soil. Here, open this bottle and take a sniff. Note the scene. If you detect any of these while on shift, please inform your superior immediately.

      Now, please report to quarantine room C for the next 36 hours....

  25. We Don't Need Another Snowden by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    We need direct action to dismantle the Fascist regime presently in power by eradicating the NSA and the TSA, returning the FBI to Law Enforcement, charging the members of Congress found to be conducting rampant Insider Trading with Federal Charges rather than giving them a pass and revoking the Patriot Act. Until then, it doesn't matter if we have 1,000 Snowdens, because it wont mean jack shit beyond tabloid fodder.

  26. Re:Just to clarify by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If history tells us anything, then that a single man who does things unsupervised can do a lot less harm than a whole governmental organization who does things unsupervised.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Re:An Illegal Agency Needs... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If daddy Stalin taught us anything then all that's needed is a firing squad. Or, if you have the bunch all rounded up in a building, just enough TNT to level it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Re:Most transparent administration ever! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Dude, you have to learn how to read slogans. "Yes we can" means "We CAN, but we DON'T". And Hope and change means that you may hope for change. If you so please. It's a free country after all.

    Seriously. Did anyone really expect anything just 'cause the guy is from the other end of The Party?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Same cost, same corruption and same amount of taxpayer money being squandered, but at least you do NOT get anything for it instead of getting inconvenience and surveillance.

    I'd say it's a step in the right direction.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. Re:They already do by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Without the FOIA and responsible journalism there is no oversight by the people. If you can't see it, how can you oversee it?. The first amendment is in place, in large part, because freedom of speech is quintessential to the running of a fair process. Journalism is the "fourth branch" of government, and by not responding legally and appropriately to the FOIA requests the DHS is both acknowleging this and circumventing the well established process. So saying "Every single government department that has power over other people needs a watchdog or oversight committee." coupled with "The people are the oversight committee." is just a long winded way of saying that the DHS needs to be eliminated.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  31. Coast Guard can't be under military command ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    U.S. Coast Guard there is no conceiveable reason this agency should not be under control of the pentagon ...

    The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. armed forces from enforcing the law. That is why the National Guard is normally under the command of a State Governor and the Coast Guard is normally under the command of a civilian agency. When under such command they are not considered part of the U.S. armed forces and a Governor can have the state National Guard units enforce the law, for example during natural disasters, riots, etc. Similarly when under civilian command the Coast Guard can enforce maritime law, enforce safety regulations, arrest smugglers, etc.

  32. Don't mention the STASI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Plenty of people noticed this was where it was heading right when the thing was announced. It's right in the name, too.

    The general reaction was one of indifference. I vividly recall sharing a link to a bit of American-written op-ed in the grauniad warning of this. The Californians I was talking to shrugged it off as "written for European audiences" and therefore not worth consideration.

    Well, American People, if you don't want to listen to even your own fellow countrymen (and -women, as was the case here) just because it was published outside of the "homeland", don't be surprised if you get horribly blindsided by the bloody obvious.

  33. The entire federal government by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Needs about 350 million edward snowdens. Time to vote these criminals out people! Democrats and republicans both.

  34. Every department needs one. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Most of the US states need one... most of the departments in those states need them... Many major and even minor cities need them.

    Whistleblowing and leaking should become a core part of our democracy. Yes, government must keep some things secret... like your identity info so assholes aren't stealing your ID every two seconds to rob you. Or national security secrets like the plans to the latest hydrogen bomb. By all means keep those secrets.

    But pretty much everything that doesn't need to be kept secret... shouldn't. Total disclosure. Government should in most cases be naked.

    Technically, they work for us. They are employees in our company. We have every right to know everything.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Every department needs one. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I didn't leave him anywhere. What do you want me to do? I've gotten into literal screaming matches with people over this issue and was able to turn most of my family around 180 degrees.

      beyond that, what do you expect me to do? Protest day after day in front of some federal building? I've got bills to pay. I can't do that. What about sending letters to politicians? Already done.

      What else? Want me to go all 80s action movie on the issue and sneak into russia to smuggle him out?

      Get real.

      The US on so many issues is waiting... waiting for the morons currently in power to be timed out of office so we can have a chance at getting a new group of people that hopefully less idiotic.

      That's it. that's all we've got at this point. We've got stupid leaders in office and they're going to sit there being stupid until they're removed. And given the factional nature of our political system even people that know the current officials are stupid will support them because they're more opposed to whomever the opposition will put in power even if they're not as stupid.

      Its called politics and I have no power to change it beyond my little votes and protests. There are 300 million people in this country and I'm just one guy.

      What exactly do you expect me to do here?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Every department needs one. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      We're well past that... we're in perhaps ballot or jury territory at this point.

      Soap box stage ends when you've said everything you've needed to say... it was heard... and nothing changed.

      That already happened.

      I won't up arms against this government though. Its not worth it. I'll just leave. Let the morons eat each other alive in a foaming cesspit of stupidity for all I care.

      here is where someone says "cya" or similar... to which I can only reply "same to you."

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  35. Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To rely on some lone person to give up their freedom for the sake of yours, for a second time, makes you seem so pathetically weak and likely unworthy.

    You think Snowden is happy with the support he has received? None of you has so much as lifted a finger in his defense.

    You're all fat and stupid and will be buried with your guns unfired in your new police state.

  36. Re:They already do by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    If you establish another government office to do the overseeing, it will immediately be infected by the corruption of that which it oversees.

    Thats what we have Fox News for.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  37. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by AuralityKev · · Score: 1

    Big grains, BIG grains of salt on the rim.

  38. No Information by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Since DHS doesn't deal with actual information, it is reasonable that they do not respond to Freedom of Information requests.

  39. Re:Bob: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Turn all the records over to Congress and start over.

    I'm sorry, what? Turn the records over to the same panicky corrupt bastards that created the department? Give me some time to figure out the logic there..

    I'm afraid if you want to start over, you'll have to destroy the universe.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  40. For all we know, there's been a few. by Kuroji · · Score: 2

    Likely they were discovered earlier than Snowden and became the subject of an extrajudicial execution, much as some have clamored to have done to Snowden.