Slashdot Mirror
FBI Studied How Much Drones Impact Your Privacy -- Then Marked It Secret
v3rgEz writes When federal agencies adopt new technology, they're required by law to do Privacy Impact Assessments, which is exactly what the FBI did regarding its secretive drone program. The PIAs are created to help the public and federal government assess what they're risking through the adoption of new technology. That part is a little trickier, since the FBI is refusing to release any of the PIA on its drone project, stating it needs to be kept, er, private to protect national security.
Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US. And this from a president who promised "the most transparent administration in history".
I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If they have nothing to fear from the reports content then they should have nothing to hide.
The FBI isn't yet aware of the NSAs little brown submarine drones that listen in on FBI scuttlebutt in the loo.
Periscope UP! Only assholes in here captain.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Why classify the report? EVERYONE KNOWS what it contains.
I guess the contents of the report show that their drone programs impacts privacy in ways that violate the law. So their drone program needs to be stopped.
What's that, FBI? It doesn't? Well then why don't you release the report, without any omitted material or redacting.
I mean, you say the program is working within the correct boundaries. You should have nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong.
I don't care anymore. I've already renounced my US citizenship and moved away. I suggest the rest of you do the same before it gets worse.
It might be time to plant your cell phone on your worst enemy available.
Better give them your new car too.
...I think the government hides things, not from foreign threats, but from the internal threat of average Jane and Joe Schmoe flipping out if the government actually admitted their rights don't mean shit.
... to get the PIA for you.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
At a time in at which criminals felt that cell phones were safe to use in committing their crime planning it caused a lot of them to end up in prison. As it became more apparent that cell phones were being used to catch criminals they switched tactics. So now we may have drones that are quite small and can plant a microphone in the plants near a porch where people are thought to be conspiring to commit crimes or organize terror attacks. Would you want them to really believe that such a technology could be applied to them at this time or perhaps let them think that such a technology is so expensive and rare that only much more important criminals were being watched? Nobody wants the government swimming in their soup bowl but on the other hand we may depend upon that type of law enforcement more than we know. It is not a simple issue and even beyond the Constitution is the fact that the government has a duty to persist over time to keep that constitution alive as well as the american people.
but I classified it as top secret.
This is not an issue. It is protecting their privacy that matters.
You should really qualify "The Press" in these types of statements. The Press could be ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and many more who today claimed an 82 year old man shot a pregnant woman as a headline, when the person was both not pregnant and also committing armed robbery for at least the 2nd time against the same 82 year old man who was beaten as well as robbed. The Press could be the same crew that edited audio to make it look like a guy on neighborhood watch simply claimed to the Police that he was following a Black guy where the full audio shows he is responding to a 9/11 operator asking what race he believes the suspect was. The same media claimed that that guy was White when he's Hispanic, and portrayed the victim in a 7 year old picture to make it appear like the guy shot a little kid instead of a 6'1" nearly legal adult. All to sway public opinion (that one was for numerous purposes). The same media that interrupted a Congresswoman discussing the NSA for "breaking news" that Justin Beiber was arrested, and ensured that a twerk skank received more air time than dialogue about numerous political issues.
The media we normally see and hear IS on the same team as the government, make no mistake.
As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays
To some extent I agree that this, but up until 20 years ago we had some real journalism. Nation wide every station lost their "investigative reporters" within the same couple years, and that was the end of any real journalism with any of the 3 letter media outlets.
With rare exceptions today, the only thing that get air time is propaganda.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A 'liberal' is someone who has just been arrested and wants to assert their rights... whilst a 'Conservative' is someone who has just been mugged
they are professionals. Hail to the National Securialist Party!
The reality will be that there are capabilities in the drones that they don't want to talk about. Now the interesting issue that this raises is that if a drone is used for a criminal case, it is the right of the defence to have ALL evidence gathered in the case, so actually the capabilities will become public if it is used in a case that comes to trial...
They're scared terrorist will quit once they find out just how much we're spying on people.
PIA's generally discuss the technology or system in terms of how it would be used by the agency. For the FBI, this would likely include different operational scenarios, and certainly how drone data would be used in investigations. I can understand that such information would reveal strategies and tactics. As long as is has oversight by somebody (a point of discussion, I know) I'm fine with it being marked For Official Use Only (FOUO).
Suckers.
Tea Party person showing opposition to those programs prior to 2009? Ron Paul & his followers in the 2008 election, including Campaign for Liberty?
The "Tea Party" (Taxed Enough Already) moniker didn't exist until 2009 and was first centered around the government bailouts that were occurring at that time (some under Bush even), which would make it hard to find earlier examples. However, that doesn't mean that the people protesting the misuse of government funds were not opposed to other government excesses and abuses. IT MOST CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TEA PARTY'S VIEWS ON OBAMA'S SKIN COLOR, unless you think Tea Party activist Herman Cain was opposed to having a black president. I wish Obama defenders would stop being so racially prejudiced. I guess racism must be their reason for supporting him.
In conclusion, someone thinking that it's suspect that in 2009 a group of people would begin actively protesting government spending and bailouts is someone who clearly hasn't been paying attention.
P.S. There was opposition to the PATRIOT Act among libertarians and constitutionalists in 2001 as well.
Tea Partiers don't tend to think so highly of Ron Paul.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hello, wir are looking for employers in IT Sector in Germany. (Security systems) Someone interested: http://www.tta-personal.de/ and medicine: http://www.tta-personalmedizin... Thank you
How funny can we be. Use taxpayer dollars to fund a study on drones affect on citizen's privacy, and then make it secret. Now we have to wait 50 years to learn about it. I say do the opposite, write an expose on the FBI using drones to monitor citizens and their affect on society, and then make it secret and let them quid pro quo, tit for tat, so we can compare notes and findings.
ha! those funny FBI folks (Funny Bureaucratic Investigators).
Love or hate em. I have to love em... they have a tough job to do.
I just use the words, Don't Tread on Me. --
They can hide all the reports they want. Obviously drones used improperly can completely destroy privacy. It's going to be very hard to draw the line. I just hope our country has enough sense to steadfastly oppose any use of drones for surveillance of people on U.S. soil.