Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Changed Rules Regarding Raw Intelligence, Allowing NSA To Share Raw Data With US's Other 16 Intelligence Agencies (schneier.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the privacy-concerns dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Schneier on Security: President Obama has changed the rules regarding raw intelligence, allowing the NSA to share raw data with the U.S.'s other 16 intelligence agencies. The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people. Here are the new procedures. This rule change has been in the works for a while. Here are two blog posts from April discussing the then-proposed changes.

128 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks, Obama! by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 1

    I can't believe I'm saying it, believe me!

    1. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever hear of the Strategy of Tension? Operation Gladio? Do you really think this will decrease terror attacks? Has tearing the bill of rights to shreds been decreasing the number of terror attacks so far?

    2. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the more salient point is whether or not terror attacks represent any significant risk at all. Now I'll admit when someone Jihadi drives a truck into a crowd of people, that certainly creates some casualties, and by consequence creates a significant amount of fear. But what are the real odds of any resident of a Western country dying in a terrorist attack. In reality, the odds are infinitesimal. Now dying from a heart attack or stroke, or hell, even choking or highway fatalities, those represent massive killers, with huge numbers of casualties with huge costs for society. And yet, here we are, with our stupid Savannah ape brains, unable to discern a meaningful and present threat to our person from a threat that's unlikely to harm you or anyone you know even to the second or third degree ever.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Thanks, Obama! by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 1

      Of course I've heard of those things, I know more than the generals do, believe me. But who cares? This will make it easy to find out who doesn't like me, so I can call them a BIG LOSER on Twitter!

    4. Re:Thanks, Obama! by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why must something be done?

      We have limited financial resources, if spending those same resources on a different problem will save more lives, doesn't it make sense to put the money where it will do the most good? Fighting terrorism costs a fortune, and has a track record of being extremely ineffectual. There are many more places where many more lives could be saved for a fraction of the cost, and all without giving up all our civil liberties in the process.

    5. Re:Thanks, Obama! by mjr167 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The CHILDREN! Think of the CHILDREN! How heartless can you be?

    6. Re:Thanks, Obama! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has tearing the bill of rights to shreds been decreasing the number of terror attacks so far?

      The data is too sparse to reach a conclusion. The number of attacks was near zero both before and after 9/11, and the operations you mentioned were not the only variable. We have better security, more public awareness, etc. Either way, terrorism isn't a significant risk, and our government should be diverting resources to finding solutions to far bigger risks, like obesity and dementia.

    7. Re:Thanks, Obama! by wyHunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having a populace that aren't sheep will solve this. But no, we couldn't have that, otherwise they'd know they were being screwed in all kinds of ways.

    8. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And yet, here we are, with our stupid Savannah ape brains, unable to discern a meaningful and present threat to our person from a threat that's unlikely to harm you or anyone you know even to the second or third degree ever.

      It's not just people from Georgia, it's all over the south.

    9. Re:Thanks, Obama! by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      True. But still something must be done.

      You just contradicted yourself.

    10. Re:Thanks, Obama! by green1 · · Score: 1

      Then spend the money countering child abuse, researching childhood illnesses, attacking child poverty, heck do something extremely radical like providing health care to children!

    11. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But still something must be done.

      Why?

      The problem with that question is it leads politicians to the following:

      1) Something must be done!
      2) This is something! *
      3) Let's do it!

      * Where "something" usually has the (intended) consequences of spending more taxpayer money to increase some politician's or bureaucrats fiefdom, and the (unintended) consequences to the cure being far worse than the disease.

    12. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are orders of a magnitude more likely to die from heart disease than from a terror attack. If you're talking about threats to society, then I'd argue your bigger threat is your nearest McDonalds or Burger King. For fucks sake, the sugar industry probably kills or harms more people in a month with its now-revealed war on dietary science than all the terror attacks in the US, Canada and Western Europe in the last half century. If you want to find evil villains, I'd argue you'll find more in a half mile stretch of Wall Street than in half the hell holes of the world.

      You've proven my point very well, when you define things by grades of evil, rather than by actual statistical likelihood, you end up believing there are child molesters in every alley and every shopping mall is about to explode in a hail of nail bombs. Meanwhile, companies are adding vast amounts of sugar to many foods we buy, leading to obesity and diabetes rates that will harm and even kill millions of people.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... unable to discern a meaningful and present threat ...

      Modern terrorism isn't new, there were bigger attacks in the 1960s and 1970s than the 2010s but we didn't go through the 1980s waging a war on terror. The end of the cold war both required the military-industrial complex to find a new enemy and empowered tribal conflicts to injure first-world countries. The WTC collapsing allowed the US government to wage war against an invisible threat, similar to the communist sympathizers of the 1950s. The USA already had a cultural behaviour for that and Bush junior magnified the fear factor for every aspect of travel. People complained but politicians were more interested in joining the 'fight' and saving themselves to care about practicality, efficacy or efficiency.

      ... with our stupid Savannah ape brains ...

      Our ape brains are easily traumatized yet, when impaired by an overwhelming phobia, we can still discern a likely mode of attack from an unlikely one.

    14. Re:Thanks, Obama! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's not necessarily the point. A black person is order's of magnitude more likely to be killed by a young black man than a white policeman - and yet look at BLM. Also, it is not irrational to be concerned about islamo-fascist terrorism. One because it exists. And secondly because others say "nothing to see here, move along."

      Saying and doing nothing about evil because it's significantly minor is not an answer. The amount of black and Jewish people killed by the KKK was statistically insignificant - maybe 5-6000 over 80 years. And yet the violence, the existence of "strange fruit" matters. And it matters more than highway deaths.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    15. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Treating terrorism like some great geopolitical threat is like a doctor saying he has to amputate your arm because you have a paper cut on your finger. I'm not saying we don't take measures to keep ourselves safe, but the insanity that terrorism creates among politicians and the general populace is completely out of proportion to the threat that it actually represents. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror seems to be more about creating the illusion of government action and keeping law enforcement agencies' budgets big and fat. You'd probably save more lives in a year doubling the number of speed traps on your average freeway than in all the anti-terror measures that have been put in place.

      Treat terrorists like what they are, criminals. You don't have a fucking War on the Mafia, you have the FBI and other international, federal and state law enforcement agencies actively working to break them up. To my mind, the worst thing that the West has ever done is overestimate the threat of terrorism. It's given the terrorists what they want, an air of menace that far outstrips the actual threat. I wonder if there would even be an ISIS if the West hadn't spent so much energy making terrorism seem like the greatest threat against mankind.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists. That's not to say that I or someone close to me being killed or injured by one. But then again, there's nothing to say that I don't walk out my front door tomorrow and get struck by a bus or tomorrow at lunch choking on a chicken wing, or that as we speak a tumor is growing in my prostrate. There are a near infinite number of ways to die, and I'll be blunt, a terrorist attack is very very very very very very very very very very low on that list.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Thanks, Obama! by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Geez....Obama is trying to fuck us until his very last day in office.....

      Frankly, I'm amazed we've survived this long without more rights trampled.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Our brains, like probably all brains, are wired to recognize immediate threat. On that score we are very good at assessing risk; a dark alley may hold unspoken menace, an angry man in a crowd represents an obvious threat, and so forth. Where our wiring falls short is less immediate threats. That's how the media and politicians, either intentionally or inadvertently, can trick our brains into very piss poor risk assessment, and why the solution to bad risk assessment is an actual understanding of threat.

      Want to talk to someone who can tell you the most likely ways you're going to die, don't talk to a cop, don't talk to a NSA employee or CIA agent, don't even talk to your doctor. Go talk to an insurance actuary. That is an entire profession based on actual statistical analysis of risk to determine which risks are actually more likely than others, which risks are certain, which risks are likely, and which risks are very small indeed.

      Probably the greatest example of humans native inability to assess risk is child abuse. All the "run from stranger" programs out there are based on the false premise that the greatest threat of molestation of your child lies with strange men in parks, washrooms and outside schools. And of course this is fueled by the fact that, with a several hundred million people in North America, that there will always be a number of these kinds of attacks per year. But statistically, what your child has to worry about the most as far as sexual abuse goes isn't shifty eyed perverts outside their school, it's close family members and friends.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      our government should be diverting resources to finding solutions to far bigger risks, like obesity

      Problem is the "solutions" they'll come up with to fixing that will also take away my rights.....like my right to eat a Big Mac*, or not having to go for a jog today.

      What, you don't think that'll happen? Then how is it that we're having this conversation?

      *with moderation

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    20. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Even if that someone has almost no chance at all of effecting anything beyond the tiniest percentage of the population? So you think vast amounts of money should be redirected from where they actually could save lives in an attempt to simply make people feel better? I'd wager the money would be better spent sending every citizen of voting age to a beginner's statistics and risk assessment course.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Humbubba · · Score: 1
      MightyMartian said

      ...here we are, with our stupid Savannah ape brains, unable to discern a meaningful and present threat to our person from a threat that's unlikely to harm you or anyone you know...

      My ape brain is telling me that, putting whatever reasons Obama gives aside, sharing mass surveillance is just another sado-security mechanism designed to protect the privileged from, and at the expense of everybody else.

      And Obama does think health care and safety are high priorities, as long as the insurance companies can take a cut. You're right about most of the elected though, unfortunately; they don't want the government subsidizing health care. That's just not laissez-faire.

    22. Re:Thanks, Obama! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there is a big range of options between "do nothing" and "spend trillion$”. Some money should be put into fighting it (here and abroad), but likely no more than what is put into watching China or Russia. We should train the military to deal with the new threats , and be ready for them to jump in where they can make a difference.

      Right now, a whole hell of a lot of money is being spent without making a difference. Better than eight years ago, but still not where it needs to be.

      I'll make a prediction: in the next 5 years in the US there will be a terrible act of terrorism that will kill 10,000 people and injure many more. Maybe a single act, maybe many smaller acts.

      So, how much would you spend to reduce its probability of happening by 50%?

    23. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      Hi, can you tell me a bit more about which of your rights President Obama trampled?

    24. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists.

      Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15% in 2016. It defies reason to complain about wasteful spending with arguments like these because threats are out there and threats can appear in the future. Government is our major way of handling this, an organization created by us for collective defense. I feel like there are lots of people who fundamentally misunderstand some aspect of society to think that this, or things like controlling our borders, are some crazy and unnecessary fad.

      But then again, there's nothing to say that I don't walk out my front door tomorrow and get struck by a bus or tomorrow at lunch choking on a chicken wing, or that as we speak a tumor is growing in my prostrate.

      This is exactly the major difference. These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control than are being the target of something like a terror attack. You can be a safer driver, purchase safer vehicles, practice more safety, train yourself for awareness, take less risks, etc. You are in control of your diet, you are in control of your exercise regime. You have some control over your health and health policies. You can go for routine prostate checks, you can check yourself for testicular cancer, etc. There is no control over organized terror that you can conceivably obtain other than that which we're already doing: organizing our society to collectively protect ourselves from foreign threats.

      For fucks sake, the sugar industry probably kills or harms more people in a month with its now-revealed war on dietary science than all the terror attacks in the US, Canada and Western Europe in the last half century. If you want to find evil villains, I'd argue you'll find more in a half mile stretch of Wall Street than in half the hell holes of the world.

      All of those things you've listed are local problems which are all subject to local laws and local justice. The FBI, for example, could surveil and arrest "the sugar industry" at any moment if they are committing acts which society has deemed to be illegal. The FBI, on the other hand, can't just ask a judge for a search warrant and then waltz in and arrest al-Baghdadi and other IS leaders.

      These are two fundamentally different problems: in the case of a health crisis, like diets and health habits of the late 20th century, the problem is not that there isn't enough being done about it but that people had not yet collectively decided on what is wrong and what is harmful. Everyone in our society can agree that terror organizations like al-Qaeda or IS are wrong, the question is what to do about it and how to combat it. Funding to fight something like that is so entirely different than exerting enough citizens' will to convince our governments collectively on something like a health crisis that comparing the dollar values spent on them is meaningless.

    25. Re:Thanks, Obama! by dog77 · · Score: 1

      It is the potential threat of massive destruction in a highly populated area that makes it important we are vigilent against terrorism.

    26. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What rights exactly did Obama trample? I believe they were thrown under the bus by Cheney/Bush long before Obama got anywhere close to the white house.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists.

      Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15%

      So you're saying we'll finally be able to get in Louvre?

      This is exactly the major difference. These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control than are being the target of something like a terror attack.

      So you have total control over that 18 wheeler that falls off the bridge above you? Or the fact that you have male breast cancer and it wasn't caught until it spread to your lymph nodes? Or that appendicitis that crept up rapidly and burst in a 3 hour window? Or that lightning bolt that nailed you in the middle of the crowd in the stadium? Or the tree that fell on you sleeping in your tent? Or that during birth, you damaged an artery and bleed out?

      I'm amazed at your level of control.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    28. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Treat terrorists like what they are, criminals.

      If only our political leaders had had the courage to do that after the major attacks of recent years.

      Statement from the President/Prime Minister: "This was a horrible crime, and our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends today. We are confident that the police will find the perpetrators and they will be brought before the courts to face the consequence for what they have done. In addition, the security services will investigate whether lessons can be learned to reduce the risk of similar crimes in the future. However, this appears to have been an isolated incident, and we urge everyone to remain calm and to carry on with their daily lives as normal. Thank you."

      End of discussion. End of free publicity for people trying to use violence to advance their political cause. Spend the rest of the money and attention and other valuable resources on more useful things instead of making everyone's life worse.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    29. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What rights exactly did Obama trample? I believe they were thrown under the bus by Cheney/Bush long before Obama got anywhere close to the white house.

      How about the renewal and expansion of the patriot act to name one.

    30. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It is the potential threat of massive destruction in a highly populated area that makes it important we are vigilent against terrorism.

      And the only people that can meaningfully make that kind of a threat are major military powers. The best ISIS and al Qaeda can do with their resources is kill a few dozens or hundred at a time.

      I'm not arguing that terrorism isn't a threat, but it does not represent an existential threat.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re:Thanks, Obama! by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I think you need to spend exactly as much as it takes for them to know that as a nation you're ready for them (and that you are not afraid, which overspending would indicate, apart from being wasteful). Again psychology matters. If your were fighting bad weather, earthquakes of epidemic you could go by pure statistics. But with people as your enemy, your level of preparedness helps deter them or invite them to harm you more.

      That approach is deeply ingrained in our psyche, and probably for a reason. Going against it no matter what the apparent rationale may be would get you voted out of office (or, in less enlightened times, outright killed).

    32. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Nazis didn't come out of nowhere. Their anti Semitism was merely a more extreme form if anti Jewish sentiment to be found from Ireland to the Urals. They were also a home grown menace, not alien invaders into Germany. As to invading neighbors, Germany had been plotting that while Hitler was working as a government mole in the nascent National Socialist movement.

      Islamic terrorism does not represent an existential threat to the West

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:Thanks, Obama! by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      And you'd be right to do so, as are we to see their acts of terror as evil.

    34. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It started in 2007, when junior Senator Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to the telecoms caught illegally handing over the data on Americans. Interestingly, this was one of the few times the joker didn't vote "present."
      It went downhill from there: legalized data "collection" on all Americans, torture handovers, Arab Spring/ISIS financing, coverups (see Assange/Manning/Snowden persecution), etc.
      His latest: expanded NSA power to hand over warantless data on Americans to other agencies.
      This week the devil is trying to take away our right to live: 2500 army vehicles moved to Poland, special forces moved to Lithuania... The devil wants to go out with a nuclear bang, it seems.

    35. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama is the one who started targeting specific American citizens for drone strikes because they were maybe related to a terrorist. Trial? What's that.

      And he helped increase all this spying which, as you might remember, is now going into Trump's hands.

      Finally, he decides to sabotage Israel on his way out and does his best to start a war with Russia, because apparently it'd be a bad thing if we work with them to crush Isis? Frankly, I don't know what he was thinking with this and it's the most disappointed I've ever been in him since I first voted for the man.

    36. Re: Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He failed to close Guantanamo, all while the unconstitutional law allowing government to lock people up without a trial or a lawyer indefinitely is on the books. He ordered a drone strike on an underage US citizen.

    37. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Obama backed the bus up and ran them over again.

    38. Re:Thanks, Obama! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I think the more salient point is whether or not terror attacks represent any significant risk at all. Now I'll admit when someone Jihadi drives a truck into a crowd of people, that certainly creates some casualties, and by consequence creates a significant amount of fear. But what are the real odds of any resident of a Western country dying in a terrorist attack. In reality, the odds are infinitesimal. Now dying from a heart attack or stroke, or hell, even choking or highway fatalities, those represent massive killers, with huge numbers of casualties with huge costs for society. And yet, here we are, with our stupid Savannah ape brains, unable to discern a meaningful and present threat to our person from a threat that's unlikely to harm you or anyone you know even to the second or third degree ever.

      I honestly think it takes a Savannah ape brain to be concerned with death by natural causes when you already know that if nothing else kills you, then that will 100% of the time.

    39. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15% in 2016

      Sounds like a godsend to me. It is great that the Louvre gets a lot of visitors but the times I was there it was always packed around the popular stuff so you couldn't get close to have a good look.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    40. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Congress voted for it, and who controls congress? Now I'll grant you that Obama could at least symbolically have vetoed it, and should have, IMNSHO.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    41. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And he helped increase all this spying which, as you might remember, is now going into Trump's hands.

      He, along with Congress, actually decreased it from its unregulated heyday under Bush/Cheney.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    42. Re:Thanks, Obama! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No matter how you try to form your argument, Islamic extremism does not represent an existential threat in the West.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    43. Re:Thanks, Obama! by erapert · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%.

      And, if I may, I'd like to add tyrannical (especially communist or socialist) regimes to your list of massive killers.

      And I hope we all remember the remedy for tyranny and the relative risk of a mass shooting vs. industrialized murder by regime next time a mass shooting occurs and everyone shouts for more gun control (pure virtue signalling).

      Some math to back up my reasoning:
      Cho killed 33.
      Hitler killed 12 million in his death camps (6 million jews + about 6 million others).
      At that rate we could have a Cho every day for almost a thousand years (12,000,000 / 33 = 363,636 people / 365 days = 996 yrs of Cho) before matching Hitler.
      And that's just Hitler. We're not even talking about Stalin, Mao, North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, anywhere in Africa, and ISIS.
      But to go further, even if you implement gun control it's still not effective. Mexico bans civilians from owning guns... and the cartels are murdering people by the hundreds. Or just look at the murder rates in Chicago or New York City where gun laws are strict yet murder rates are high.

      The point is, as the parent post says, preservation of our freedom and our rights is vastly more important than some ineffectual feel-good measures the government might take.

      Let's have some sanity and perspective about the proper role of our government:
      1. To preserve our liberty as a country so others don't invade and take over.
      2. To preserve our liberty as individuals so we can live our own lives as long as we don't harm others.

      All those who want the government to make me live a certain way or do a thing or not do a thing just to suit them are the enemy. The entire rest of the world is full of busybodies and holier-than-thou jerks trying to control other people. If you're one of those control freaks then get out of my country. Go be a tyrant somewhere else.

      I want freedom back in this country and I also want personal responsibility restored as a general principle. They go together very well. And when separated tyranny results.

      And I don't need big brother spying on everything I do.

    44. Re:Thanks, Obama! by erapert · · Score: 1

      He compels me to purchase something (health insurance) whether I want it, or need it, or can afford it, or not.
      You're not free if someone is making you do things against your will.

    45. Re:Thanks, Obama! by erapert · · Score: 1

      the insanity that terrorism creates among politicians and the general populace is completely out of proportion to the threat that it actually represents.

      Don't you worry about that, citizen. You just keep on voting big brother into office so he can keep you safe.

    46. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2
      So, here's the question: Emergency services rush to a crash site, you're lying there injured with no wallet or id. Do they:
      • A) Leave you there to die
      • B) Or take you in to a hospital and save your life

      That's the simplest scenario - which do you advocate? If it's A, then what happens if you do have insurance? If it's B, who pays if you are not insured and have no means to pay?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    47. Re:Thanks, Obama! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I think the more salient point is whether or not terror attacks represent any significant risk at all. Now I'll admit when someone Jihadi drives a truck into a crowd of people, that certainly creates some casualties, and by consequence creates a significant amount of fear. But what are the real odds of any resident of a Western country dying in a terrorist attack. In reality, the odds are infinitesimal. Now dying from a heart attack or stroke, or hell, even choking or highway fatalities, those represent massive killers, with huge numbers of casualties with huge costs for society. And yet, here we are, with our stupid Savannah ape brains, unable to discern a meaningful and present threat to our person from a threat that's unlikely to harm you or anyone you know even to the second or third degree ever.

      The fact that surveillance is taking place is itself a deterrent. So, NSA or FBI or agencies know, frequently from emams, which teenagers are susceptible and let the agencies know. No, ISIS is attacking it's own religion, but is effective for kids who grow up religious, wanting sex, wanting passion. You can't have it until after marriage, ergo, it's off to ISIS we go.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    48. Re: Thanks, Obama! by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      So your saying that public policy should give more importance to your irrational feelings then to stone cold facts?

    49. Re: Thanks, Obama! by capsfan100 · · Score: 1

      This. Mighty Martian your Savanah ape brain is analyzing the data better than most. We almost need to teach school children (really, almost everyone) that fear is a useless emotion, it's all in your head. Literally.

    50. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control

      vastly more under your control

      Your local government influences road and building safety, you can take steps not to be caught in a precarious place during a thunderstorm, you can take good care of your body and build up solid preventative health habits...........

      I don't understand the point of your post. Do you disbelieve in shelter or something? All of these things you have some semblance of influence over, unlike foreign persons, such as terrorists, who are not beholden to the laws of your country. The control you exert over this is your government establishing and funding defense forces.

      Thanks for your amazement, though, it took lots of hard work and self-development not to put my tent under a tree.

    51. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      I agree, because I'm the opposite - I'd feel wariness over a potential attack but it wouldn't stop me.

      I didn't even go inside the Louvre when I was in Paris. Those pictures that come out every once in a while showing how small the Mona Lisa is compared to the gaggle of tourists all gawking at it are pretty funny. I'd love to go there during off-hours or something when you could take your time and appreciate it all rather than be bumping into people constantly

    52. Re:Thanks, Obama! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Pew research (they are not Right wing) shows that 70 percent of British born muslims want Sharia law.

      There are plenty of street preachers who proclaim they want sharia law.

      There are videos with 1000s (not hundreds) in attendance who want Sharia law.

      The time to stand up for progressive values is now. The time to say this is a multicultural society is now.

      In Brooklyn, on Atlantic Ave and Court Street, there are at least two Yemini restaurants who actively discourage women from entering.

      There are videos made by French women who show this same thing in French towns. search - Youtube: French woman no longer allowed to enter cafes. Published on Dec 20, 2016 (Youtube is blocked at work. Had to look at my phone.)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    53. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo were really the only spots where there really was a shit ton of people so while I walked by them and "saw" them it was hard to appreciate them because of the number of people. My favorite painting in the Louvre is The Virgin of the Rocks and like most of the other paintings and art all that there is the velvet rope to keep people away. The thought of how much trouble I would I get in if I touched it did cross my mind. If one really wanted to get away from people there is always the early christian section. The Louvre is a wonderful museum to go to but if all you want to do is see the Mona Lisa or Venus de Milo don't bother. It is truly huge so even if there are a lot of people they are spread out there. I took 2 days open to close to check things out and those were hot humid days as the Louvre has air conditioning unlike a lot of buildings in Paris. I lived there at the time so I could afford to take my time at places. Also I highly recommend seeing the Bastille Day parade down the Champs-Élysées and then fireworks at Champ de Mars. If you are into military history I would highly recommend going to Hôtel des Invalides. Instead if one wants to nerd out there is always Musée des Arts et Métiers.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    54. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Your local government influences road and building safety, you can take steps not to be caught in a precarious place during a thunderstorm, you can take good care of your body and build up solid preventative health habits...........

      I don't understand the point of your post. Do you disbelieve in shelter or something?

      All of those incidents were taken from various stories about bad things happening to people that merely had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. FYI, lightning can strike more than 10 miles from the front. As such, your outside time would be seriously reduced, much like being on the road - do you avoid all overpasses? That fully loaded dump truck fell off an overpass and literally flattened a vehicle with 3 people in it. There's also the cases of people running stop signs, so I guess you'd avoid all intersections, because you can't stop and look both ways in a car, because if you do, some vehicle will plough you from behind. If you do advocate that, then you also avoid entering any ocean, sea, or body of fresh water, or really do anything that involves any risk whatsoever.

      All of these things you have some semblance of influence over, unlike foreign persons, such as terrorists, who are not beholden to the laws of your country.

      Your statement is worthless as all the above listed occurrences are far more likely than being the victim of a terrorist attack. You also make it sound like all your fellow citizens are little angels. Note that you are much much more likely in being harmed by the actions of another citizen than from a terrorist (drunk/distracted/negligent drivers are a big one). But hey, don't let reality intrude on your world view.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    55. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that option A happened ever before the ACA? Emergency room care has for quite a while been guaranteed to all that come. The ACA didn't change care, it just forced people to have insurance instead of relying on the handouts of hospitals. Were you ever even in an ER before the ACA? They were always packed with people who were not emergencies because so many used them as their regular doctor due to being too poor. If the government wanted to correct the issue, why not go single payer? Instead we get a handout to insurance companies, and people defending it like it is single payer.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    56. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Being against Obama continuing the Patriot Act does not imply someone was for it under Bush. I spoke out against it here then, but supported Bush for the most part. Just because you are blindly partisan does not mean that everyone else is.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    57. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      For fucks sake, the corn industry probably kills or harms more people in a month with its now-revealed war on dietary science than all the terror attacks in the US, Canada and Western Europe in the last half century.

      I can't speak for Canada and Europe, but this is caused by the corn industry in the US. Sugar has tariffs in the US to make it more expensive than corn syrup to support the corn industry, so everything uses corn syrup as a sweetener. Corn syrup has a higher percentage by volume of fructose than actual sugar, and fructose is turned into fat automatically in the body. This is part of the problem, but even sugar isn't very good for you in large quantities, but it is at least marginally better than corn syrup.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    58. Re:Thanks, Obama! by erapert · · Score: 1

      Fallacy.

      For example, maybe the hospital saves my life and then, when they find out who I am they bill me.
      Maybe the hospital saves my life, then, when they find out that I have no money, they put a lien on my assets or they can garnish my wages until the debt is repaid.
      There are other possibilities here besides forcing me to buy insurance against my will.

      And before you straw man me, I'll point out that my argument isn't that I think insurance is always bad and never wise. I'm simply insisting on consent.

      Sex without consent is rape.
      Taking another's possessions (i.e. money) without consent is theft.
      Threatening violence (i.e. a police "visit") in order to make someone to give you something is extortion (a special case of theft).

      Having the government do these things on your behalf doesn't make it right.

    59. Re:Thanks, Obama! by erapert · · Score: 1

      Um, that's called "Life in society" dude.

      Was that your reaction when women, blacks, and gays sought civil rights? "That's just the way things are; so just suck it up."

  2. Most open and transparent president ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most open and transparent president ever, just with your data, not his.

    1. Re: Most open and transparent president ever... by ememisya · · Score: 2
      I'm thinking about hitting you in the head with a baseball bat for saying that causing severe bodily harm to your person (I was sincerely afraid of typing, in the privacy of my home and my phone, that I will actually do that. Quite chilling, being afraid to write). I'd also like to mention that according to the document this post will now be retained and shared across the world and analyzed.

      2. (U) When the communication contains evidence of a crime or a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person, or anomalies that reveal a potential vulnerability to U.S. communications security, the recipient IC element will notify NSA's OGC, which will review it according to the applicable NSA procedures and policies.

      So yea, we are now part of the daily routine of some Eagles fan, sipping his coffee, contemplating whether he/she wants to inform the authorities and likely make my life hell as I try to explain I'm simply trying to demonstrate how such a thing simply cannot coexist with the 4th ammendment. But hell, Google doing it, Instagram, Facebook, why not everybody? Internet is not a tool for free expression, we are sitting in a room full of authorities forced only to type the correct words. No thanks, I'll just stick with Slashdot, the freak of my life.

  3. Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now more important that ever. Encrypt everything, no matter how mundane. The government is in a not-so-subtle war against the populace.

    1. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are encryption algorithms not susceptible to quantum computing methods.

      Of course, the fun thing about encrypting everything is that they have to decrypt orders of magnitude more stuff than they do now, and most of it turns out to be useless crap like funny cat videos or instance messages saying "wassup, bro?" or the equivalent.

      It's like using a shredder. Sure, the pieces can be reassembled like a jigsaw (as the Iranians who took over the US Embassy during the Carter administration proved), but if you throw in a lot of mundane crap with the interesting documents, the payoff is a lot lower for a given unit of effort.

    2. Re:Encryption by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Do you actually believe the NSA's quantum computer won't break the encryption you use ?

      How charmingly naive.

      If government is hoarding code breaking class of quantum computers unknown to or inaccessible to the rest of world/industry then cracking encryption is the least of your problems. Any such exclusive technological edge would be massively dangerous/disruptive.

    3. Re:Encryption by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And just remember, there are still codes unbreakable by even quantum computers.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Encryption by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yes, but unless the existence of quantum computers is proven they will not be used much because they have disadvantages over existing algorithms, like huge keysizes.

    5. Re:Encryption by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The disadvantage is in that people need a 1 time cipher source that's shared between them. There's a lot more overhead but they are virtually uncrackable by any means. I didn't say this was to protect your purchase of Adele songs or the like from Amazon from government inspection.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Encryption by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2
      Unless they have a machine that is made of something other than matter and occupy something other than space I'm not too worried about them cracking modern 256 bit symmetric key encryption. Even on an ideal quantum computer using Grover's Algorithm they would still need to use a sizeable fraction of the US's total annual energy consumption. This however is on ideal computers running at the temperature of the cosmic background radiation temperature so in reality they would require several orders of magnitude more energy. To put things in perspective here is Bruce Schneier's comments on the hard limits of breaking a symmetric key encryption:

      One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information. To record a single bit by changing the state of a system requires an amount of energy no less than kT, where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant. (Stick with me; the physics lesson is almost over.)

      Given that k = 1.38×10^-16 erg/Kelvin, and that the ambient temperature of the universe is 3.2Kelvin, an ideal computer running at 3.2K would consume 4.4×10^-16 ergs every time it set or cleared a bit. To run a computer any colder than the cosmic background radiation would require extra energy to run a heat pump.

      Now, the annual energy output of our sun is about 1.21×10^41 ergs. This is enough to power about 2.7×10^56 single bit changes on our ideal computer; enough state changes to put a 187-bit counter through all its values. If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years, without any loss, we could power a computer to count up to 2^192. Of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter.

      But that's just one star, and a measly one at that. A typical supernova releases something like 10^51 ergs. (About a hundred times as much energy would be released in the form of neutrinos, but let them go for now.) If all of this energy could be channeled into a single orgy of computation, a 219-bit counter could be cycled through all of its states.

      These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.

      So go and see what the best break for a modern symmetric crypto system is and see where it falls on the above description.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Encryption by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      While quantum computers screw over RSA and other asymmetric key crypto systems based off of the integer factorization problem, the discrete logarithm problem or the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem, they just substantially speed up symmetric key. The speed up of symmetric key crypto systems is substantial but all you need is to double the key length. So a 512 bit key in a real quantum computer world would be as strong as a 256 bit key in our current classical computer world. Also the reason all of the AES competitors had 256bit keys is because NIST had the good sense to think that quantum computers would become viable within the lifetime of the AES standard and wanted something that still provided the same security as 128 bit keys in a classical computer world. By the way it would take a sizeable portion of the total US annual consumption to just cycle through a 128 bit key on an ideal computer, so we are already at a hand waving level of silly at that level.

      If you mean asymmetric key systems there are replacements but I am not familiar with the math behind them so I can't really comment intelligently on them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  4. Partisan Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why wasn't Obama impeached for spying on Americans? It seems like, if partisan bickering were put aside, we could stop arguing over Obamacare and focus on things that really matter. If circumventing the Bill of Rights to spy on all Americans isn't an impeachable offense, I'm not sure what is. Even if the Republicans were to focus on this instead of Obamacare, there's no chance enough Democrats would have gone along to make impeaching Obama meaningful. It's a shame that the Democrats would have but their party allegiance ahead of the American people and the Bill of Rights.

    1. Re:Partisan Nonsense by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republicans won't make noise about this because they want it just as much as the Democrats.

      You seem to think there's an actual difference between the 2 parties on issues like this, there isn't. Both parties want a full on police state, politics is all about control, nobody in politics wants less control, they all want more.

    2. Re:Partisan Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you met a Republican who was strongly opposed to global mass surveillance? The Republicans could have had a majority for the last 8 years and never would have attempted an impeachment for this issue. Spying makes their dicks hard.

    3. Re:Partisan Nonsense by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Will we be allowed to suggest it for the first orange president?

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    4. Re:Partisan Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the Democrats certainly weren't going to impeach their own boss, and the Republicans hands are tied, after all, they whistled and turned their heads when their president used War Powers to justify his warrantless wiretapping program, despite the fact that waging war against America is one of the two definitions of Treason in the US Constitution.

    5. Re:Partisan Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Republicans won't make noise about this because they want it just as much as the Democrats.

      You seem to think there's an actual difference between the 2 parties on issues like this, there isn't. Both parties want a full on police state, politics is all about control, nobody in politics wants less control, they all want more.

      That is Right. The Bush Administration is responsible for signing into law the Patriot Act. The Left is just leveraging the pre-existing legislation, firstly by renewing it unnecessarily, then by reinforcing it to be more liberal with the data.

    6. Re:Partisan Nonsense by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why wasn't Obama impeached for spying on Americans?

      Why wasn't Bush impeached for spying on Americans?

      Why won't Trump be impeached for spying on Americans?

    7. Re:Partisan Nonsense by BundesSheep · · Score: 1

      Excellent questions. I'm fine for all three, although we've missed the boat on two of them.

  5. Good night, and good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Convenient, they don't even need to go to the trouble of parallel construction anymore! And the old argument of "don't be so paranoid, the NSA doesn't care about you" goes right out the door. Now your local Sheriff gets to find out when you text your buddy about smoking a bowl, and unlike the NSA, he does care and might have decide to pay you a visit.

    As if it wasn't time to encrypt every communication already, it's definitely time to start now.

    1. Re:Good night, and good luck by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Now your local Sheriff gets to find out when you text your buddy about smoking a bowl, and unlike the NSA, he does care and might have decide to pay you a visit.

      A bowl of what? Cheerios? You mean pot? If my local Sheriff wants a hit, I'll tell him to go buy his own. No, he can't have any of mine.

  6. Very Good by hackel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This will continue to push people toward using technologies that protect their privacy and are not vulnerable to this kind of surveillance. If people want privacy, then they must demand it, and utilise software that ensures it. No one should have any expectation of privacy making e.g. an unencrypted call over the public phone network. It's just crazy anyone would ever think that was private in the first place. At least this will help in capturing the more inept criminals and terrorists.

    1. Re:Very Good by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Phone conversations USED to be private and the authorities couldn't listen in, of course that was when people still thought the constitution meant something, so it's no surprise nobody still believes in such quaint ideas.

      Enjoy your encryption while it lasts, I figure we only have a few years left before anyone using encryption that isn't intentionally backdoored will be labelled a criminal and arrested.

    2. Re:Very Good by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The most wrong thing to do is accept the loss of human rights to serve the insane psychopathic greed of corporations. Privacy is a right and people should have the expectation that their right to their privacy will be respected by law. It is the duty of citizens to ensure their rights are protected including their right to privacy. There is no doubt that criminal penalties need to be applied to privacy invasive and abuse corporations.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Very Good by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      re "vulnerable to this kind of surveillance"
      The other fun part of this will be that people without the skill of the NSA will be looking at raw data.
      Given so many agencies, contractors and staff report to the executive branch they will find the party political results required.
      No need to set up an Office of Special Plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
      Just feed raw NSA data to all the agencies and find the one that reports back with best party political result.
      What the NSA might give "moderate confidence" another agency thats more politically aware might give "high confidence".
      Given 16 agencies and their contractors to select results from any needed political product can be presented from domestic surveillance.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Very Good by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Phone conversations USED to be private

      Phone conversations used to be analogue and unencrypted. Phone conversations used to require someone to manually patch through cables and them not listening in was somewhat based on trust. Phone conversations used to be shared between multiple houses so you could hear what your neighbours were chatting about.

      Privacy came a long time after phone conversations did.

  7. NOT FAIR! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nowadays, you can't even have a couple of Romanian prostitutes piss on you in a Moscow hotel without people finding out and pretending it's a big deal. Sad!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:NOT FAIR! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I want to apologize to all the Trump supporters for that. I'm just mad because unlike the President-Elect, I'm so poor I can only afford to pee on myself.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:NOT FAIR! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's he difference between a lentil and a chickpea?
      Trump won't pay $1000 to have a lentil on his face.

      I'd carry on, but that'd be taking the piss.

      But you're still reading, so I guess urine for the long haul.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:NOT FAIR! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You're here all week?

      This is fascism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . Hillary and the dems fit.

    4. Re:NOT FAIR! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Hillary and the dems fit.

      Ah yes. I expect after 4 (or 8!) years of Trump and the Republicans, you'll still be blaming the Democrats. It seems like personal responsibility is the antithesis of a quite large segment of the voting population.

      Anyway, say what you will, but it's not a Democrat governed state (NC) which has been declared no longer a democracy by the Independent Electoral Commisson. I'll bet that's the 'Dem's fault too, right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:NOT FAIR! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Hi. When you make a statement like " it's not a Democrat governed state (NC) which has been declared no longer a democracy by the Independent Electoral Commisson.", it would be really nice if you could put a link to what it is your talking about. I googled it and it seems to be talking about election fraud, however both sides aren't even claiming that. Hillary was though Jill, however recounts showed us that Hillary actually lost more when they recounted so they STFU about that. It exposed her fraud. Hillary is probably as corrupt of a politician as we've ever had to try to run for Pres. No doubt, if you or I did anything like she did nobody would probably hear from us again. At least outside of a jail.

      Probably worth pointing out that we're not a Democracy. Never claimed to be. We're a Republic. The US has the very best form of Government the world has ever seen. We're also the oldest.

      You seem to be a typical Democrat. You're projecting your shortcomings on others. I put blame where it belongs. I was accused of being a liberal when GW was in office. I'd still be blaming the Republicans. No, they both have plenty of blame to go around. I think GW did what he thought was right and he did it to the best of his ability. Obama if you read his book "Dreams from my Father", he tells us he's going to try to destroy the US. Don't believe me? He'll read it to you himself. Make the US just another country. Withdraw us from our friends, really take it down and he has. The crazy left has hijacked the Democratic party and murdered civil discourse. That's why if you don't believe what they do totally, then all the terrible accusations come out. Racist, homophobic, and so on and so on, anything to get you to shut up. That's just what the Nazis did. All leftist.

    6. Re:NOT FAIR! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      it would be really nice if you could put a link to what it is your talking about.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      Had brain fart and referred to IEC not EIP.

      Hillary is probably as corrupt of a politician as we've ever had to try to run for Pres.

      The Republicans have been gunning for her for decades and have yet to make a single thing stick. There's hardly another politician who has had such intense scrutiny. And yet, still nothing. Mr Trump on the other hand isn't even trying to hide his corruption, but for some reason a lot of people don't care nearly so much if he does it.

      Probably worth pointing out that we're not a Democracy. Never claimed to be. We're a Republic

      The two are not mutually exclusive and a representative democracy is by far the most common form of democracy. The US is intended as a form of democracy, but in some cases the corruption within the Republicans is so deep it stops functioning as such. In NC for example.

      The US has the very best form of Government the world has ever seen.

      [citation needed]. That's really a pretty odd claim.

      We're also the oldest.

      Oldest what? Democracy? Nope. Republic? Nope. Country? Nope. Government? Nope. The US may be many things, but oldest anything it is not.

      You seem to be a typical Democrat.

      If you say so. Not that I've ever voted democrat in my life, but sure.

      I was accused of being a liberal

      It's more of a compliment than an accusation.

      The crazy left has hijacked the Democratic party and murdered civil discourse.

      That sounds much more like a description of the right and Republicans than the left. What with the gerrymandering, fillibustering and playing chicken with a default.

      But you're sound very much like the model of a modern right winger. Figure out all the stuff you're doing wrong then yell really loudly that the other side is doing it and hope no one notices. For some reason this often works pretty well. However, eventually reality will collide with your politics (it is already colliding) and then your tactics will seem a little hollow since reality doesn't care what you say.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:NOT FAIR! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]

      That's an odd report for so many reasons. NC really brought themselves into the future, done by the Republicans. Research triangle, etc. They rival sunnyvale. Now all kinds of foreigners are being brought in, it's shifting the demographics so it'll probably go blue soon. Funny how they belly ache. Maryland is an example of a blue state and they have all those things. Gerrymandering, spending the state into bankruptcy,etc. Then elect a Republican governor to bail them out, like right now. Very cut throat in that state, like NY state. They even put my MD lawyer in jail, even though he's very much for the Democrats and it was over BS. One line in a ledger. He deposited money into the wrong account by mistake. That is all they could find. All this because he disagreed with them, once. Man, they stripped him like piranha after a cow. Even though he helped them a great deal over the years. Nothing I or anyone else could do about it. He even had former governors testifying on his behalf. None of that mattered. NC isn't really an example as the report says. They're trying to stop the new governor from trashing the state. Just like you'd probably want to keep a thief out of your house. They don't know it's a losing battle. The report is like I said - very odd. Like a petulant child that didn't get their way or something? Could be I suppose.

      The Republicans have been gunning for her (Hillary) for decades and have yet to make a single thing stick. There's hardly another politician who has had such intense scrutiny. And yet, still nothing. Mr Trump on the other hand isn't even trying to hide his corruption, but for some reason a lot of people don't care nearly so much if he does it.

      Gunning for? More like they've got. They took both of their law licenses years ago. They've had all kinds of trouble over the years. If the Justice Dept would have issued paperwork like they were supposed to, she'd be in jail right now. I have a friend that studied her. Man, study her for a while. You'd never believe it if I told you here. As for Trump, NY State has been "gunning" after him for decades. Democrats don't like success. They've even tried to set him up. No, he's not corrupt. If he were there is no doubt they would have got him. I understand NY State may get Hillary. She's violated state law it seems. Stay tuned, could get interesting.

      Oldest what? Democracy? Nope. Republic? Nope. Country? Nope. Government? Nope. The US may be many things, but oldest anything it is not.

      Why don't you think the US is the oldest? Lefty propaganda maybe?
      Oldest Democracy, Republic and Government (YES) - http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

      (being called a liberal) It's more of a compliment than an accusation.

      You're kidding. It's like being called a thief, liar, bigot, despot. Good case in point right now - you must make our gay cake or we'll sue you out of business because your religion, anything you say - fuck you. Yet people who want to go to Washington for Trump's inauguration - now they're bullying people into not participating. Even after a 16 year old singer named Jackie Evancho, who even has a trans sister. That's what libs are all about, controlling everyone else into their warped world. Screw everything else - my point on murdering civil discourse. Entertainers, artists, sports people - stay out of politics. (Republicans,Democrats) buy (theater tickets, shoes, art, etc) too. It's a gig. STFU. If they don't want to do it, fine. The Republicans aren't like Democrats and won't make them do what they don't want to do.

      The crazy left has hijacked the Democratic party and murdered civil discourse.

      That sounds much more like a description of the right and

    8. Re:NOT FAIR! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That's an odd report for so many reasons.

      Not really.

      NC really brought themselves into the future, done by the Republicans

      That's irrelevant to to whether or not they're engaging in the most shocking display of gerrymandering ever seen in the US. The fact that you bring up irrelevances like that smacks of making excuses. In the fact the rest of your post is a list of things you think the Democrats have done worse elsewhere.

      It's very telling that instead of owning that the people you seem to approve of have done something bad, you're care much more about attempting to show how other people are worse rather than calling your group to account.

      Very modern Republican that is: under no circumstances every take responsibility.

      The sad things is your lords and masters know this. They know that you are so blinded by tribalism that you will never ever criticise them no matter what in case someone thinks you are a "liberal". So, they know they can get away with the most egregiously bad things because you will never ever hold them to account.

      No, I'm not a "right winger".

      Yeah you are: your intrepretation of "liberal" is exactly what you get out of exrtreme internet nutjos, not actual reality.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. Look Who the FISA Court Protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, remember how the FISA court is essentially a rubberstamp for surveillance warrants?
    As in they have only refused 0.03% of warrant requests?

    Well, guess what warrant the FISA court did refuse?

    The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

    WTF?

    1. Re:Look Who the FISA Court Protected by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      This shows how the FISA court is a treasonous element within the judiciary, making a mockery of the constitution.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Look Who the FISA Court Protected by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Two administrations were perfectly fine with them having that power, though.

  9. Encryption will not save us.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .....if those that control the endpoints (Apple, Amazon. Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.) will end up sharing the data anyways.

    1. Re:Encryption will not save us.... by johanw · · Score: 2

      That's where end to end encryption is invented for. Apple, Google, etc. can not read the data themselves.

    2. Re:Encryption will not save us.... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Just be aware of who is making your trusted end to end product.
      A lot of US brands face the NSL issues to help the US gov.
      The UK has its own laws about what the UK gov and its security services can see and be given by any UK brand.
      Now that Australia, NZ, Canada, the UK, US agencies are all getting same raw NSA product, thats a lot of staff who have to be totally trusted all the time.
      Thats a lot of party political staff, contractor think tank connected staff, random contractors rushed into a role with some "skill", faith based people, cult members, people with deep and generation links to other nations with dual citizenship tendencies.
      Once a brand gives their back door or trap door to the US or UK gov, a lot of other agency staff will get to search, track and sort.
      Also recall oversight in the US, UK is not the best as many of the security services and agencies don't really get much supervision under executive branch or their own internal guidelines.
      So make sure your encryption works as any US or UK brand *has* to help the security services. One time pad will give privacy back. Anonymity is the next challenge given a collect it all policy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Cleaning fee? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Did he get charged an extra cleaning fee?

    1. Re:Cleaning fee? by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's what I love about the Russians, folks, they don't charge cleaning fees. They did my hotel laundering for free, they did my money laundering for free, they even financed my campaign. VERY SMART!

    2. Re:Cleaning fee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      throw faggots off of buildings to their deaths

      Sounds like Russia.

  11. Re:FASCISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quite the opposite.. he's trying to ensure that fascism DOESN'T come to America. ... by making it a surveillance state that would make the Geheime Staatspolizei (gestapo) or the later Stazi green with envy.

    A surveillance state which, BTW, the next president will inherit in a week.

  12. Fortunate he does this just while moving out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like a time bomb. With more people on the case it is increasingly difficult to vet them all making a fiasco like Snowden ever more likely.

  13. Legacy by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    Obama just announced his legacy. Just in time for a trump presidency too!

  14. Fortunate he does this just while moving out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a time bomb. With so many more people receiving the information it is difficult to vet them all making a Snowden like fiasco ever more likely. I guess that's why he never did it before he wanted to leave it for Twitler to receive the blowback which he will handle just as well as he has handled every other problem (badly)

  15. The meme is the message by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's especially funny.

    Because I believe I explained how this kind of nonsense works in my comment from just under a week ago, quoted in relevant part:

    I have secret evidence that your secret evidence is completely bogus. This same secret evidence also indicates that you secretly wet the bed last night. And 20 organizations have signed off on it.

    People who watch the "news" are like 50 shades behind everything going on. You guys have no idea how hilarious this is while waiting for you to catch up. But the real joke here is that there are people who actually think that CNN & BuzzFeed's "raw intelligence" of Trump pissing on Obama's bed is real. Corroborating evidence? We have a video of someone who gave Trump a golden shower in 2011! (quasi-SFW, despite what you might think)

    Just don't read this guy's explanation of how it was sourced from nonsense they fabricated based on this old TIL on Reddit (amazing how history repeats itself...). But yes, someone can then feel free to link me to BuzzFeed & others "debunking" that one on the basis that the 4chan post laughing about their first victim is newer than the document they wrote during the primaries.

    And then we can laugh at how they don't totally "debunk" the dossier based on the fact that they can't corroborate anything worth a damn in it, save maybe that it was created by someone doing an opposition report on Trump who got paid more the longer it was. That way we can all ignore all the more mundane items in the report that were proven to be nonsense. Anyhow, there are far more interesting things to research while everyone else is still wading through the "leaks" and yellow journalism. Feel free to keep wading through the stream, hoping to uncover nuggets of truth. I don't know about you, but after that sort of filth, I need a shower.

    1. Re:The meme is the message by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Just don't read this guy's [twitter.com] explanation of how it was sourced from nonsense they fabricated based on this old TIL on Reddit

      The whole, "it started on Reddit (or 4chan, or wherever)" has already been debunked. They guy who claimed to have started the rumor conveniently says he lost his original post with the story, "because he installed a new OS".

      And anyway, the story has been out there for quite a while. The Wall Street Journal and the BBC have it from completely different sources. There were even efforts to get FISA warrants to look into the story.

      Man up and accept that your Dear Leader likes chicks to piss on him. It's a stain that will not wash out of his presidency. The funny part is that is the least objectionable part of what was in the 35-page dossier that the British Intelligence agent prepared on Trump.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The meme is the message by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      So let me see if I've got this correct:

      just don't read this guy's [twitter.com] explanation of how it was sourced from nonsense they fabricated based on this old TIL on Reddit [reddit.com] (amazing how history repeats itself...).

      You've just linked to some dude's twitter account and a reddit post about Sukarno as evidence of how "fake" this news is, while ranting about how everyone in the world is a stupid sheep listening to "fake news" (except you, of course). Buddy, the only hilarious joke here is you people and your total disconnect from reality you people live in and your total, all-pervasive need to be told what to think by the propaganda minister of an orange buffoon. But none of us are laughing.

    3. Re:The meme is the message by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      The fact that they've laundered a bad opposition report that has people on the wrong side of the planet in a country they've never visited into "British intelligence" pretty well sums up the modern media and their complete lack of credibility.

      But you do have one thing right: I don't listen to the news at all. I pull the actual verifiable facts (if any) out of the news and do my own research.

      That can be done really quickly with some sites. You end up with a short list looking like: anonymous sources, anonymous, our past BS story, BuzzFeed, and a random Tweet and that tells you all you needed to know about the article.

  16. NSA probably isn't very happy about that by LTIfox · · Score: 2

    That would undoubtedly compromise intelligence gathering methods. Plus it would be only a matter of time before one of the recipients got hacked and all the data dumped.

  17. From a purely practical perspective by dbIII · · Score: 1

    From a purely practical perspective it makes sense since the NSA didn't have their shit together enough to even see the Arab Spring coming why not share their stuff with people able to make sense of the information?
    Personally I think they should be disbanded and replaced with real military instead of the current kids that never grew up playing at being James Bond.
    Real military folks have rules of engagement instead of the totally amoral spook shit we've seen a lot of lately.

  18. Who else read this as... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Who else read this as... "Obama OK's 16 more agencies to engage in domestic spying, in addition to the NSA, which already engaged in the practice"?

    1. Re:Who else read this as... by tlambert · · Score: 2

      LOL!

      "Obama Promises, Including Whistleblower Protections, Disappear From Website"
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  19. Re:Hide a tree in a forest. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It may be pure fantasy, but if it is it's really funny pure fantasy because Trump talks as if he would do that sort of thing.

    It's at least less dark than all the rumors about cocaine catered kiddie fucking parties.

  20. Re:anonymity by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...US agencies have failed to identify terrorists because big data obstructed a proper investigation.

    Sorry, wrong.

    US intel agencies both intentionally and knowingly ignore terrorist intel they have and intentionally and knowingly have not and are not truly trying to utilize or effectively collect and analyze data/intel for use against foreign terror threats. Terrorist attacks give them the perfect scare tactic to convince people to allow them more power and control. The entire manner, types, technologies, architectures, and methods used are only truly suited best for only one thing: domestic data collection, surveillance, and monitoring of the US population and assisting allies to do the same with theirs while helping with US surveillance. The entire system as a whole is poorly suited for anything else other than domestic surveillance and data mining/advanced analysis.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  21. The surveillance state is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't already clear that the purpose of the surveillance state was anything other than "protecting" us, all you have to do is look at the Orlando and the more recent Ft. Lauderdale shootings: extremists who were already on the FBI radar, who spoke with federal law enforcement directly and, in the latter case, went to law enforcement and said they felt pressured to join ISIS! And in both cases the mass shootings still happened.

    If they can't stop terrorism when the means to do so lands in their laps, all of the Constitution-shredding surveillance in the world won't help them.

    Of course, that isn't the point.

  22. This answer to this is social by waspleg · · Score: 1

    not technical. Both wars are probably already lost.

  23. So president Obama ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... rigged the election.

    President Obama has changed the rules regarding raw intelligence ...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  24. Re:Hide a tree in a forest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean, you haven't even caught on to half of my throwaway jokes yet...

    Dude, you are not a 4d chess grandmaster.
    You are just another internet douche blind to his own extreme cognitive biases.

  25. Yes, psychology matters by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Psychology matters.

    So our governments and media should stop doing the terrorists' job for them by hyping the threat out of all proportion and trying to keep their populations in a perpetual state of irrational fear.

    Some people will still be excessively concerned about something awful happening, whether it's a terrorist with a gun or being hit by a stray asteroid. At some point, that paranoia becomes a significant mental health problem, and the best thing you can do for people in that position is recognise it as such and provide the support they need to help deal with it, just like the PTSD you mentioned.

    That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of the population should be forced to share in the paranoia, particularly when doing so comes at such a great cost in both resources and in freedom.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  26. Re:It's because you keep losing, right? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    College freshmen don't know the gold key from the red key on a Vax.

  27. Re:Revenge of the nerd virgins by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Afraid not. My posts don't have enough typos and I've only been involved in the firing of maybe two people. Besides "Donald Trump" has had an account here for a while now.

  28. Re:It's because you keep losing, right? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Haha, who am I kidding. So far, they strongly prefer to keep losing to Trump.

    Somebody's #madonline.

    But actually, he's not mad, he's laughing. You can tell because he typed "Haha".

    Just suck it up and take the L on this one, buttercup. You're president is a piss-soaked yam who brings a stack of folders with blank sheets of paper in them to a press conference.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

    You'll want to scroll down to the photo showing that none of the stacks of folders containing these "important documents solving all his ethics problems" have labels on them. Maybe he should talk to his legal team. Or, his prop master.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. Obama now supports whistleblowing! by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He just needed to get out of office.

    Obama made the most pro-transparency move of his office time. By greatly increasing access to secret information, the odds of us knowing the lies and crimes of the future administration are also increased. Let's hope for new troves.

  30. Papergate intensifies! A4, 8.5x11, or LEGAL? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Project much? I'm literally laughing out loud. The only ones who got peed on were CNN & BuzzFeed at that press conference.

    I mean, seriously, blank paper? That's your retort? Sorry, I forgot that it was wrong sized blank paper. I can't believe they didn't impeach him for that! Yes, let's now debate the virtues of 8 1/2 x 11 vs. A4 vs. legal. We can then proceed to read Trump's next Twitter typo to the entire world, as if to sum up to the world the bad joke the media has become.

    What's this now about taking an L? Could it be that you have your hopes set on one of the other scams? :)

    You do remember that Trump takes office in a week... right?

  31. Election 2016 sums it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People have no idea how badly they're been screwed

    First of all we need to talk about California in particular to get some kind of an intuition for this.
    The 2016 results for California are the fifth largest win, ever, for a poplar vote win in California.

    In elections that California has had a large popular vote win, it has always been the case that the country as a whole was very partisan towars a particular candidate, or indeed against a particular candidate or mandate:

    I cite these for reference, starting with the election of 1928 - the closest comparison of popular vote share in Californian history . ie.e ie in 1928, the Republican party won California by 31% of popular vote. In 2016, the Democrats won it by 29%.

    But, the thing is, in 1928 it was an overall landslide
    Electoral vote Hoover (Rep.) 444 Smith (Dem.) 87 Popular vote 21,427,123 15,015,464

    Hoover kiled Smith, and California was just another symptomatic piece of that.

    And not just that election, in every election where there has been a massive popular vote win in California, there has been a massive electoral college and popular vote win nationwide:

    1920: Cox Harding (Rep.) 404 Cox (Dem.) 127 Popular vote 16,144,093 9,139,661

    1936: Roosevelt (Dem.) 523 Landon (Rep.) 8 Popular vote 27,747,636 16,679,543

    1904: T. Roosevelt (Rep.) Parker (Dem.) Popular vote 7,630,457 5,083,880

    So, hopefully I've managed to convince you that it's very peculiar that California would in 2016 have a massive popular vote win and that somehow this was not reflected in the overall results. Something's got to give. Either there were irregularities with California, or there were irregularities with the rest of country and not Califonia. I beleive there were regularities across the county but just much worse in California.

    You may not like the following source if you're a liberal - Fox - but I cite it:

    Voter fraud California

    It's just an example and not proof of widespread voter fraud, but where there's smoke there tends to be fire.

    The billionaire, George Soros predicted Trump would win the popular vote by a landslide and lose the electoral college.
    He was heavily vested in the election (to the tune of $1 billion) so I'm going to assume hea meant what he said.

    And it's not just California:

    Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

    Colorado Voter Fraud Runs Rampant

    3.7 percent of voters in Burlington’s last big election not on rolls

    Multi-state voting

    Extensive voter fraud from DNC covered by Project Veritas:

    Detroit irregularities