Slashdot Mirror
FBI Quietly Changes Its Privacy Rules For Accessing NSA Data On Americans (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The FBI has quietly revised its privacy rules for searching data involving Americans' international communications that was collected by the NSA, U.S. officials have confirmed to the Guardian. The classified revisions were accepted by the secret U.S. court that governs surveillance, during its annual recertification of the agencies' broad surveillance powers. The new rules affect a set of powers colloquially known as Section 702, the portion of the law that authorizes the NSA's sweeping "Prism" program to collect internet data. Section 702 falls under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and is a provision set to expire later this year. A government civil liberties watchdog, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, alluded to the change in its recent overview of ongoing surveillance practices. The PCLOB's new compliance report, released last month, found that the administration has submitted "revised FBI minimization procedures" that address at least some of the group's concerns about "many" FBI agents who use NSA-gathered data. Sharon Bradford Franklin, a spokesperson for the PCLOB, said the rule changes move to enhance privacy. She could not say when the rules actually changed -- that, too, is classified. Last February, a compliance audit alluded to imminent changes to the FBI's freedom to search the data for Americans' identifying information. "FBI's minimization procedures will be updated to more clearly reflect the FBI's standard for conducting U.S. person queries and to require additional supervisory approval to access query results in certain circumstances," the review stated. The reference to "supervisory approval" suggests the FBI may not require court approval for their searches -- unlike the new system Congress enacted last year for NSA or FBI acquisition of U.S. phone metadata in terrorism or espionage cases.
The sad thing is, it's only Americans who are serfs in America. Canadian and citizens of the EU have real privacy rights guaranteed by US/Canada and US/EU data treaties, which are binding.
They can even sue for their rights.
You can't.
Oh, wait, serfs had the right of appeal. You don't even have that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
BeauHD, I've generally found your editing to be quite good (much better than timothy's, in my opinion), but this summary is particularly bad.
The summary is extremely wordy, yet very vague at the same time.
I have no idea what it's trying to say, and that's even after I've read the article.
One of the links also points to Tumblr.
Many users here block any and all content hosted on Tumblr, due to concerns about its social justice content.
While the subject matter may be interesting or relevant, the summary is impenetrable.
This is a case where the submission should have been rejected, or completely rewritten into something more comprehensible.
Fightclub, Is, Secret, Alright?
I can think of a couple of places they should be getting used on, and none of them overseas.
Obama would kill a lot of ACTUAL terrorists if you hit those offices...
So a secret court stamped 'legal' on a classified set of rules governing what access the FBI has to the data that the NSA officially does not collect?
I think, comrade, that we might have made an error somewhere in the process of implementing this 'representative government' concept...
The team that's implementing these "classified revisions" just needs to have it explained to them that we don't want security in exchange for reduced freedom.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
This is it! This will finally make us all safe. Thank goodness, I thought the finish line would never come.
With this lynch pin, the fbi can put a complete and utter stop to all senseless crimes and radicalized zealots. And as an added bonus, they shalln't be requiring any further expansions of their powers and legal abilities.
It's good to know the good guys are out there looking out for us and protecting us from those who would take our freedoms to sate their lust for world control and domination.
Section 702 facilitates targeting and collection on non-US Persons outside the United States whose communications enters, traverses, or otherwise touches the United States, as over 70% of international internet traffic does, or as does any non-US Person outside the US using any US-based cloud or internet service.
Where US Persons come in is because US corporations and organizations are also "US Persons". But if we suddenly say that doing foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside the US should require the same individualized warrant protections as Americans citizens living in the US, it absurdly turns the entire purpose and function of foreign intelligence collection on its head.
And if you already don't trust the government, you won't care about anything in this explanation anyway.
FISA is more like a branch of the executive, so its the executing approving the executives actions, the court is just a label.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, is also another agency within the executive. So that too is the executive approving the executives actions. This time with a "privacy" label on it.
Also the 'F" in FISA stands for FOREIGN, yet its been used to sign off on USA domestic surveillance too, outside of its remit. The bulk "collect it all" that built a haystack out of mainly American data then searched it for foreign needles.
These 'courts' and 'privacy boards' are really a sham. I'm not surprised they keep their "judgements" secret from the public.
who the fuck wrote this awful summary. was it really that hard to add a little about what the fuck the changes actually are
Sharon Bradford Franklin, a spokesperson for the PCLOB, said the rule changes move to enhance privacy. She could not say when the rules actually changed -- that, too, is classified.
The classified changes ?
Sure:
Then why such a massive uninformative overly wordy summary? this all could have been achieved in a couple of sentences. FBI made changes, it was accepted by secret court but we don't know what the fuck they changed but privacy groups are somewhat happy about the changes they can't tell us about.
What is that? Is that some new show like So You Think You Can Dance?
Did anyone else's next-word predictor colour 'enhance' as 'eliminate' ?
Requiem for the American Dream
Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!
Clearly, if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind sharing information. People who hide information are clearly terrorists or criminals. You know... People like the ones in the NSA and the FBI.
If when the rules changed is classified, I feel confident that when (or whether) the change in rules causes an actual change in behavior is also classified.
Wait, what does this mean for climate change and net neutrality? OH LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
I don't actually know if any scope expansion took place here. However this is exactly how such expansion takes place.
Start out with a high profile, strong privacy and security policy. Then incrementally weaken it through "quiet changes in policy" until everyone including the meter readers have access. "Hey, they are valued members of our security team!"
What, are you against efficiency? This is just an efficiency measure!
Legislation by regulation is lazy law. This is legislation by secret regulations.
Troubling.
Regulations are supposed to be reviewed by congress.
A bunch of lazy or impertinent thugs inserted language that allows regulation
to pass into the status of law if unchallenged.
It is impossible to challenge a secret change....
Kafka is giggling.
Joseph Heller is giggling.
George Orwell did not author a plan, don't ya know... it was a cautionary tail.
Wait someone is knocking on the door.
I was nine and asked the grandmother of the neighbor kid what those numbers on her arm were.
I was an ignorant silly nine year old. Not stupid... I did listen the next day to her daughter.
Pay attention.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.