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!
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.
... to get the PIA for you.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Only sometimes? And since when do average Jane and Joe Schmoe care about the constitution or fundamental liberties? Most people seem to want safety above all else, despite pretending to want freedom.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You are very correct. Look at personality types to confirm this. How many people want to open a business? How many just want a steady job? How many people are more than willing to follow along after a strong personality?
The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way. And if you think following another, or following the majority is the safest route, there is a good chance that's whats going to happen.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way.
That really doesn't explain why some people are principled enough to reject safety in favor of freedom. And most of the 'risk' is vague or exaggerated in the case of terrorism anyway. There is really no direct threat or huge army coming to murder us, so it doesn't even mean sense. That's what makes it even more baffling.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Who gets extra "privacy" from drone use?
The main fear is US state based "Ag-gag" anti-whistleblower laws eg Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... getting media attention.
The price of getting videos showing animal cruelty is dropping.
The price of getting videos showing hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" pollution dropping.
A lot of US states are trying to use laws like: 'Commerce Protection Act", "an act relating to agricultural facility fraud", "Livestock Operation Interference Act", "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", "Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act", “visual or audio experience occurring at [an] animal facility.”
Just talking about federal law enforcement views around drones, HD media, size of drones, drone costs could alert national and state media to local stories as filler.
The best way out for the FBI is to redact all, no story, no media interest, no local press on their states expanding ag gag laws.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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
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...
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).
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
I want a steady job instead of opening a business because I want to spend my time writing software instead of engaging in government bureaucracy, handling the first tier of customer support and marketing things to customers.
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.