×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Obama Announces Surveillance Reforms

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the knowing-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing dept.

Government 359

In a speech today, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes for the operations of the country's intelligence agencies. He says the current program will end "as it currently exists," though most of the data collection schemes will remain intact. However, the data collected in these sweeps will not be stored by the U.S. government, instead residing with either the communications providers or another third party. (He pointed out that storing private data within a commercial entity can have its own oversight issues, so the attorney general and intelligence officials will have to figure out the best compromise.) In order for the NSA to query the database, they will need specific approval from a national security court. Obama also announced "new oversight" to spying on foreign leaders, and an end to spying on leaders of friendly and allied countries. Further, decisions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will be annually reviewed for declassification. A panel advocating for citizen privacy will have input into the FISC. There will be chances to national security letters: they will no longer have an indefinite secrecy period. Companies will be able to disclose some amount of information about the NSLs they receive, something they've been asking for. Another change is a reduction in the number of steps from suspected terrorists that phone data can be gathered. Instead of grabbing all the data from people three steps away, it's now limited to two.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45987903)

first.

BETTER! (3, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45988661)

There! I feel the hot breath of reform already. Big brother is a subcontract.

Now the secret courts will have to examine secret accusations with extra secrecy. The NSA building data centers will be reversed, so that the commercial sector can occupy this function. And send the bill for "services".

 

Re:BETTER! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988783)

“aides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, just how far the surveillance had gone.” David Plouffe, Obama’s advisor, said, “Things seem to have grown at the NSA. I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.”

What an ignorant, stupid little cunt. Obama is a world class moron who has no clue and really doesn't give a shit.

So the hell what? (1)

robinsonne (952701) | about a year ago | (#45987909)

Except that everyone is a suspect...so gee I feel so much better now.

Re:So the hell what? (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#45988053)

Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that. I have my own problems with the FISA court system but at least it does add an additional party looking over the requests and the small size of the court reduces the amount of work that can be done requiring the NSA to actually focus their work to real suspects. This change is good for American freedom from a surveillance state and it's probably good for our security as well as the analysts will be looking at sets of data with a higher signal to noise ratio.

Re:So the hell what? (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45988155)

Since they claim they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now

FTFY

Re:So the hell what? (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45988169)

"Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that."

Sorry, but no. The FISA court already approved all that in the past. So why would this make any difference?

This is a joke. A distinction without a difference. You know very well that Obama has been in favor of expanding surveillance -- because he DID. This is just another of his many lies. He's pretending to address the issue without making any real, substantive changes.

Re:So the hell what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988349)

Sorry, but no. The FISA court already approved all that in the past. So why would this make any difference?

Because... hope and change!

Re:So the hell what? (5, Informative)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#45988611)

what annoys me about this is obama is focusing on the phone data collection stuff. but what about PRISM, and the L3 infrastructure stuff, the new text message stuff (which is notable because it's content, not metadata), and all that jazz. he says the NSA's stuff is legal and he'll make a few adjustments, but he's ignoring all the ILLEGAL things they do. BTDubs the full text of the speech is at NYTimes [nytimes.com] .

It's not just the president, but gov. corruption. (4, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year ago | (#45988807)

Also, the President is not allowed to know everything about what the secret agencies do. There have been many examples of that.

The U.S. government has engaged in violence each year for more than 100 years, to make a profit for a few. Anyone desiring more information about that can, for example, read these highly rated books:

Overthrow: America's century of regime change [amazon.com] from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer

The brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and their secret world war [amazon.com] by Stephen Kinzer

Re:So the hell what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988245)

Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that.

It might have if the law hadnt changed some years back to allow them to submit the search up to several days after conducting the search.

Re:So the hell what? (2)

rlwhite (219604) | about a year ago | (#45988297)

There's already been a report of one of the FISA judges asking for more funding to expand the court if this kind of change goes through. We can't count on the bandwidth remaining small.

Re:So the hell what? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#45988669)

I think we can count on bandwidth being the bottleneck if they eliminate some of the shortcuts / workarounds. Human endeavors grow linearly. It takes twice as much manpower to process twice as many NSLs. Computer stuff can grow exponentially or geometrically. so if you make the review process more rigorous then the growth in computer stuff will be constrained by human linear growth limits.

Re:So the hell what? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45988733)

I believe that the solution will involve dividing the nation into precincts on the lines established by state and local voting. Each precinct will have have their own FISA judge assigned.

What a safer country, will America be, than it was in former days, when known as land of free.

Re:So the hell what? (5, Insightful)

robinsonne (952701) | about a year ago | (#45988357)

I don't see any of the "changes" they've made or have talked about making as protecting American freedom from a surveillance state. All I see is Washington trying to sweep things under the rug and bury things deeper.

We made a change, won't you please forget it ever happened now? OOooooh look over there!!! Shiny!!!

Re: So the hell what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988441)

I calculate the odds that this Politician is lying about this to be 100%.

Re:So the hell what? (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#45988557)

Ever heard of pre-signed forms? The FISA court is worthless.

Re:So the hell what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988629)

Since they have to go through the FISA court for warrants to do the searches now the bandwidth of the court will limit their ability to dragnet like that. I have my own problems with the FISA court system but at least it does add an additional party looking over the requests and the small size of the court reduces the amount of work that can be done requiring the NSA to actually focus their work to real suspects.

FISA Court rubber stamps every warrant request. Why aren't the president and these "justices" dead at the hands of angry citizens? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrB6z3VMak

Re:So the hell what? (5, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#45988709)

The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):

From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government, according to annual Justice Department reports to Congress.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616 [wsj.com]

You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

Re:So the hell what? (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45988133)

But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

Re:So the hell what? (4, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#45988387)

But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?

Just as happy as the families of every detainee released when Gitmo closed five years ago, and the families of troops that all came home from Afghanistan and Iraq five years ago when we ended those wars.

Re:So the hell what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988585)

Yes, such good, caring loving family men are those gitmo detainee terrorists. I'm sure they miss that wife that they care about so much, after all, they only beat her twice for her letting a locket of hair slip out in public that one time, that was very merciful; and once they even decided, after much thought, against trading her for a goat and an AK-47. Yep, that's love. Not to mention, the sons will look mighty handsome with bombs strapped all over them, and their daughters.. well, they might fetch a decent sum.

Re:So the hell what? (-1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#45988705)

I don't understand this comment. is it sarcastic? if so, then #FAIL because I imagine the Gitmo families and troop families were very happy when their loved ones came home. Is it sincere? then you're saying it actually does make you happy that O promised they wouldn't look at your data. #WIERD.

Re:So the hell what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988809)

Yes, it was sarcastic. Obama promised to do those things and didn't live up to his promise. Now he's promising that they'll never look at the data.

I'm not GP, but I'm guessing he meant that we can't trust Obama or his administration since they've lied to us before.

Re:So the hell what? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988873)

I won't be happy until the senior NSA officials responsible for these programs are charged criminally and given public trials. With great power comes great responsibility and the people in charge at the NSA have forgotten that. They need a harsh reminder to prevent this from happening again.

"We've changed just enough to mollify the public outrage" isn't acceptable and won't deter future transgressions.

Re:So the hell what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988347)

I'm not even going to read the summary of this article. Even less what he said. I just know that whatever he says or anyone over there for that matter, it's a lie. Just stay away from the rest of the world, you stinking horrible people. Die over there in your stench.

Re:So the hell what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988509)

Obama announced the NSA will not conduct electronic surveillance on national leaders and governments of allies and friends but he didn't say the NSA will not use surveillance data provided by these allies and friends gathered about US citizens and permanent residents and visitors. I cannot believe Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer when everything he does violates the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and a variety of international laws. If he was Caucasian someone would have at least attempted to assassinate the POTUS for treason against the People. The Courts certainly are not upholding the Constitution. Rock me Amadeus!

Re:So the hell what? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#45988541)

Well, they at least improve the marketing aspects. Nothing else will change anyways, the surveillance-state is already established.

tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45987925)

And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (4, Insightful)

killhour (3468583) | about a year ago | (#45987993)

It's pretty obvious what's going on. The administration knows it needs to do something to save face, and wants to do it on their own terms preemptively before they have to respond to proposals by people that AREN'T working for the NSA's best interests. If Obama cared, he would have done something about it BEFORE it was a PR nightmare.

Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45988227)

He cares all right... he want's MORE surveillance. He's proved it many times over.

For what it's worth, I agree that Obama's proposal is nothing more than a whitewash. I'll support the other bills that come up in the House and Senate.

Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (2)

Idou (572394) | about a year ago | (#45988637)

tin_foil_hat_mod=1

Maybe Obama does care, but cannot show it because the NSA would destroy his future by revealing some secret information they have found on him or his family. Accordingly, perhaps Snowden was actually a plant by some government official/agency outside of the NSA, trying to expose the monster the agency has become. However, until the NSA powers are reduced enough, everyone in the know also has to pretend Snowden is a fugitive.

.... who wants to buy movie rights?

Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45988381)

Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum.

The problem here is that unless resisted, power concentrates. There isn't a vacuum, but rather power being taken from other sources, namely, individuals, the states, and businesses.

Re:tl;dr no change except more outsourcing (2)

JavaLord (680960) | about a year ago | (#45988713)

And the intertwining of corporation and state increases.

Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum. So there will always be strong government - the only thing we can influence is who controls the strings.

Really, this is just strong government period. The government is telling corporations they must store data for surveillance purposes. This is a tax, as business must pay for the storage. Big business might not mind it that much, because it increases barriers to entry for small guys and creates and incentive for the government to keep them in business.

I'd agree that totally removing a government creates a power vacuum. However, if Obama had made strict rules regarding a citizens privacy in regards to government and business that wouldn't create a power vacuum it would just mean the citizens are the empowered entity in the equation.

I don't know... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45987961)

...this sounds to me like rebranding.

Re:I don't know... (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45988187)

Sure, we're still going to spy on your web history and every phone call, email, text, etc. that you send or receive. But this time WE PROMISE not to look at it! Satisfied, assholes?

Money Talks (4, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | about a year ago | (#45987973)

In other words:
1) A private enterprise will store secret data: What could possibly go wrong?
2) More secret court oversight: as if the secret court that exists right now is not rubber-stamping everything the NSA passes its way.
3) Companies will be able to talk about the secret court orders: Google and Facebook signed a big check for the future Obama Presidential Library?
4) Rest assured this is a true reform! Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

Re:Money Talks (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#45988199)

Never let a good (Snowden induced) crisis go to waste. In this case, they are taking the opportunity to privatize the spy apparatus further than ever before, and Obama has been told to sell it to the population at large as a good thing. Lucky they have all the mass media to help sell that line...

Re:Money Talks (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988247)

You forgot the #5:

5) A reasonable and smart Constitutional scholar and former professor is overseeing the process now.

Obama isn't the retarded Bush that could barely read. Obama actually has an Ivy League degree. He didn't draft dodge like Bush. While he hasn't stopped the TSA, he hasn't increased their power like Bush would have done. We can trust him. That's what different this time around.

Re:Money Talks (3, Insightful)

robinsonne (952701) | about a year ago | (#45988439)

So people with Ivy League degrees never lie? He definitely tries more at being smooth-talking and glib but I trust him even less than Bush. Which is more dangerous, an incompetent crook that is blunt and makes mistakes or a competent one that doesn't?

Re:Money Talks (5, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#45988451)

That's what scares me the most.

Obama is a very smart man. He's a scholar who taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. He campaigned on a reduction of surveillance and spying. Then, once President, he did a 180.

Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?

Re:Money Talks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988747)

You hit the nail on the head!
Who watches the watchers?

Re:Money Talks (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988749)

No, and how did this get modded 'insightful'?

You're missing the simplest explanation: during his campaign, Obama lied.

Re:Money Talks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988567)

:dies laughing:

I hope to God you're being sarcastic.

Re:Money Talks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988623)

I almost missed the dripping sarcasm in this one. lol

Re: Money Talks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988731)

Examine Obama's actual work history. He was never a "law professsor, " and he never "taught Constitutional law." Nor did he ever edit a single law review article. A lifelong bloviator.

Re:Money Talks (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988769)

Uh. Bush graduated from Yale and got his MBA at Harvard. Spying programs expanded under Obama. You are delusional.

Re:Money Talks (2)

Garridan (597129) | about a year ago | (#45988251)

This is already EXACTLY what happens. The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), for example, is a private company whose largest (though not sole, if you read between the lines... a comforting thought) client is the NSA. So basically, Obama's "reform" is "don't worry guys, we'll totally change everything: third parties will collect and analyze your information, the NSA will only purchase access to that information. Just like we're already doing." Sadly, this is "change I can believe in" 'cause it's the same bullshit I've come to expect from this twofaced asshole.

Great! (1)

ElementOfDestruction (2024308) | about a year ago | (#45987975)

YEAH I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT.

Obama gives Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45987983)

and finally everything is resolved!

Doubtful (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988001)

"If you like your privacy, you can keep it, period."

The corporatism of America (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#45988009)

So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

Another nice contract to somebody. No real change in the Status Quo.

Gotta love that hope and change.

Re:The corporatism of America (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#45988841)

So, aside from a few window dressing changes and a toss to the big Internet companies - the biggest difference is that another company is going to 'store' the info and the government is going to have to ask itself if it can get access to it?

No, the biggest difference is that we're no longer going to spy on foreign leaders. Which is one of the few things the NSA was doing that was within their legal mandate (foreign signals intelligence is what they were created to do - domestic signals intelligence is something they were forbidden to do).

Unless laws change (2)

Monoman (8745) | about a year ago | (#45988011)

Unless laws change to explicitly ban behavior there is little to stop them from creating exceptions to their own policies and procedures.

Re:Unless laws change (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#45988051)

Laws don't need to change. Most of this is already unconstitutional. They've just been using their "State secrets" argument to keep it from getting to the supreme court to get ruled on.

Re:Unless laws change (2)

Monoman (8745) | about a year ago | (#45988467)

Then explicitly outlaw that behavior because the existing law is not actually working.

All about saving face. Didn't even address prism. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988013)

I watched the whole thing. He chose to focus on phone meta data collection and not even address prism and the likes of the new utah data center. The speech and these new "reforms" are all about preserving the NSA ecosystem (read money) that spends billions of dollars of tax payer money on programs we don't want. For christs sake they are tapping domestic fiber lines and siphoning everything into storage (including phone calls) and the language in the law doesn't even consider it a search until the data (that they already stored) is queried. He won't address it because they already spend billions on it and he who upsets the flow of money in washington might as well tie their own noose. The dollar sign is the new swastika.

Re:All about saving face. Didn't even address pris (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45988683)

He won't address it because they already spend billions on it and he who upsets the flow of money in washington might as well tie their own noose.

Or maybe he actually believes the surveillance is a good thing. Given his voting record, that seems likely. Obama has faults, but being a slave to money doesn't seem to be one of them.

Too little... Too late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988015)

DO. NOT. TRUST.
EVER.

He's finally done it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988019)

He has become a worse president than Dubya.
And the best part? This is not even his final form!
*cue music as Obama goes super-sucky-saiyan*

Re: He's finally done it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988123)

Saiya-Jin you racist!

Change You Can Hope For (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988061)

So much change. Except, there is no change.

I read the article and the Slashdot summary seems quite disconnected from the facts of the CNN report.

'Let me be perfectly clear. We are making broad changes. But, data collection will continue. We might move the storage out of the NSA, or not. We won't listen in on Americans or our allies, unless we think we need to. We might add privacy advotaces to the FISA court, but we might not. So, you understand, this is change you can believe in.'

Re:Change You Can Hope For (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45988427)

The change you voted for was edited after [huffingtonpost.com] . But don't worry, things will change, just don't complain if it's for worse.

Re:Change You Can Hope For (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year ago | (#45988633)

You pretty much nailed it.

welcome to nothing (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45988063)

So it's a mix of bullshit and nothing. Fake oversight with "input" and everything stays the same.

"annually reviewed for declassification" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988067)

"Says here we need to review our decisions to see if they're fit to be declassified."
"This all looks like information on critical national security matters to me! Classified!"
"Same time next year?"

So, no substantive change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988069)

So, they're going to juggle how it all works but not actually change any of the creepy facts regarding storage of everyone's correspondence and secret, unopposable usage of this data. Help me out here: Is this, and Ms Feinstein's 'no drone spying' nonsense actually going to work to convince people they're undoing their panopticon programs?

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988071)

Who will be stupid enough to believe this?

What a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988093)

Total joke not a darn thing will change.

Re:What a joke (1)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about a year ago | (#45988185)

Lots will change. For one, instead of a government entity tasked with keeping and tracking secrets, the tax payer will get bilked by the same telcos already screwing us over who don't think the internet should fall under common carrier laws. Now we get to dump piles of cash at the same piece of crap to store data instead of a government organization who actually understands big data.

3rd Party Storing of Information (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#45988129)

Great, what possibly could go wrong there?

Target (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988145)

I heard that Target put in a bid to securely host all of the secret data.

Israelis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988161)

Are these third party companies the Israeli companies that are already working with AT&T and Verizon (Narus and Verint) in order to collect the data?

If so, then NOTHING is changing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6 [businessinsider.com]

Not only no ... (4, Insightful)

Chromium_One (126329) | about a year ago | (#45988163)

... but also go fuck yourself, Barry. Can't believe I voted for you. Ah well, let me look over the protest options next cycle.

Re:Not only no ... (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#45988407)

Next time don't vote for a guy with no real trackrecord. For a politician, actions always speak louder than words.

Re:Not only no ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988549)

> ... but also go fuck yourself, Barry

Wow, how irrational. Calling him Barry is just racist. That isn't his name.

Also, he didn't create this situation. He has shown leadership by putting an end for good to this Bush-created madness. The NSA is no longer collecting this information. If you were rational, you would be praising him. I guess instead you support searches without a warrant since you're made that they have been put to an end. For good.

Of course, I expect you to use his middle name in your reply. That's always how you Faux Knews guys escalate the issue. Guess what, this place, while the editors might be ruled by CONservatives, most of the posters here are not so you will not get a friendly reply for your racist hate messages.

Re:Not only no ... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#45988859)

Maybe you won't but you know what 95% of the people who want to protest against Obama will vote for, get ready for a third George Bush (if there's any left) in office. <sarcasm>I'm sure that'll sort everything out.</sarcasm> I'd quote the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, but reality has fiction beat. Enjoy your lizard.

The hope and change! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988203)

Like lipstick on a pig.

Trust us, we're, like, TOTALLY actually doing this (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year ago | (#45988219)

What about oversight? They say they're going to stop doing this and that, but how will we ever know whether they're being honest about it? How will we know whether the next president decides to turn the bus back around? Congressional oversight is a joke, as members of Congress (e.g,, Feinstein) are as much in favor of running roughshod over citizens' rights and allies' respect as Gen. Alexander is. FISC oversight is likewise pointless, and several of those judges have argued against even having an opposing side arguing for the privacy protections of the people. Short of another Snowden, there's no way to know.

Someone please break into his house (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988223)

and take his peace prize away

Re:Someone please break into his house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988865)

But how do we find out his address?

Obama as the official 'transparency president'... (4, Funny)

Noishkel (3464121) | about a year ago | (#45988241)

... recognized that his administration has slipped up in allowing the NSA to have 100% free feign with civilian surveillance. Our bad.

To reward the citizens continued support of out cause we will be increasing the official ObamaChocolate programs weekly individual chocolate allowance from 30 grams to 25 grams.

Third parties, huh? (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | about a year ago | (#45988283)

I'm sure the NSA will have about as much trouble getting to that as they did getting into other companies' data centers.

When everybody is the enemy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988311)

It is time to ask everybody you know the rhetorical question "When everybody is the enemy..."

Just who's side do these spy's think they are on?

The governments responses to 9/11 and 7/7 have done more damage to our societies than the terrorist attacks ever did.

The mention of Snowden's name (4, Interesting)

mws1066 (1057218) | about a year ago | (#45988419)

When Obama mentioned Snowden's name, you could see a bit of disgust and a sneer streak across his face for a brief moment. He then felt the need to point out that he was ahead of Snowden, planning to confront the system anyway.

The transparency president (4, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about a year ago | (#45988423)

How about U.S. citizens can query the database and receive a report on what data the NSA has collected?

Is it for real? (3, Informative)

hduff (570443) | about a year ago | (#45988435)

Read "Enemies: A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner and you'll see that we have been through this BS before. Nothing changes.

its the back asswards way of admitting that there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988457)

.that there was indeed surveillance taking place. Get it?

Didn't even read the article. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988501)

Is Gitmo still open? Are the lights still on at the NSA? I trust you not.

Ahem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988543)

Snowden: 1 Obama:0 (4, Interesting)

Morpeth (577066) | about a year ago | (#45988639)

Regardless of one's feelings about Snowden, I think it's pretty clear these changes (IF actually implemented) are a result of him opening peoples' eyes to the extent of the surveillance and spying on the American people. We seriously owe him, big time imo.

As an left-leaning independent, I was generally optimistic about Obama entering office, sadly, not so much any more --- NOT that I think things would be better under Republicans mind you, who seem to say 'less government' only in regards to their corporate overlords, but are heavy handed in wanting to legislate their personal morality (gay marriage/rights, religion, women's issues, etc)

Many days I wish the US had a parliamentary system such as England or Canada, this two party sh*t if for the birds. At least in those countries, minority parties can actually gets seats and have some representation -- here, we are stuck with two lame ass parties.

"No evidence of abuse has been found" (4, Informative)

Error27 (100234) | about a year ago | (#45988645)

Obviously LOVEINT is one example. But more details are coming out about how David Patraues was caught having an affair because of "metadata" collected by the NSA.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/17/4111871/metadata-helped-reveal-gen-petraeus.html#.Utlud2nfqCg [charlotteobserver.com]

When Jill Kelley first reported getting threatening emails about Patraues, the FBI read all her emails as part of "a routine step".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/us/from-petraeus-scandal-an-apostle-for-privacy.html [nytimes.com]

They didn't have a warrant to read her email, they just hacked into google and made a copy of everyone's email. If you report a crime to the FBI they read your email. Simple as that.

A curb on *use* (not on *collection*) (3, Insightful)

hazeii (5702) | about a year ago | (#45988679)

Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.

In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.

So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.

Two steps away from a terrorist (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45988693)

I'm sure Kevin Bacon is breathing a lot easier now!

only one problem.. (4, Funny)

strstr (539330) | about a year ago | (#45988699)

The real surveillance and intelligence community crimes and abuses were not addressed.

They did nothing about the remote sensing and energy weapons abuses. Because they'd surely have to convict the President and others of crimes.

Dr. Robert Duncan of the CIA says that radar systems were retro fitted with mind reading and mind altering technology in the 1970s and 1980s. Which they are using to remotely decode peoples thoughts, emotions, memories, and also to remotely control and commit secret assassinations and experimentation right here domestically for the last 35 years.

These black operations can also be confirmed by NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who said they target Americans with space capability during their black operations. That includes illegal surveillance called Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, based on the same technologies Duncan disclosed.

A US Investigative Services (defense contractor) employee also came forward to say that these weapons are real and being used to target people to me in private. In fact, she presumes, that I was targeted during highly illegal psych / weapons experimentation.

This technology is the ultimate surveillance gear, and our fuck tard police, FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD and Homeland Security agents are running around using this in secret on us. Spying on our thoughts, memories, what we see, hear, think, and feel. Agents link up and covertly communicate and spy on citizens, and they attack and brutalize people, set them up to look mentally ill.

Read USIS employee transcripts here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/USIS.html [oregonstatehospital.net]

Read Remote Neural Monitoring article and 4+ patents covering these weapons, watch the 23+ videos including ones with Russell Tice and Dr. Robert Duncan admitting it here : http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html [oregonstatehospital.net]

Finally, see my homepage with more information including Dr. Robert Duncan's book about these abuses here : http://www.obamasweapon.com/ [obamasweapon.com]

My full story is on the site including names of people involved in targeting me with these weapons. It all started during the big US Department of Justice investigation of the mental health system going on here in Oregon, which has been going on since 2006.

The thing is, Obama knows this is going on. And so do these intelligence analysts who created the recommendations for Obama. They did not even come close to addressing these issues, and covered it all up. Tice is also claiming the program PRISM that was the target of the recommendations, is the low tech side of the surveillance issue, while the space capabilities are the high tech side which were not mentioned or addressed once. The media has been retardly covering only the low tech side, censoring revelations from Russell Tice and others. Like Tice said in July 2013, Snowden's allegations were only scratching the surface. They are never going to stop illegally watching us, .. they got 30+ electron imaging Electronic Intelligence satellites watching us now, globally, and in America.

Re:only one problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988813)

And there he is again, the masturbating psychotic known around Springfield Oregon as Todd Giffen.

Todd doesn't know it yet, but he'll soon be returning to Salem for another stay at the Oregon State Hospital for the mentally fucked up...

Re:only one problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45988869)

Dr. Robert Duncan of the CIA says that radar systems were retro fitted with mind reading and mind altering technology in the 1970s and 1980s.

Who put that silly idea in your head?

Treadstone ends, Blackbriar begins... (2)

Roskolnikov (68772) | about a year ago | (#45988711)

Likely the 'new' program is already up and running, this just provides a distraction for the masses.

This will help build PRISM v2.0 (3, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#45988827)

So since the commercial entities will now be responsible for storing all of this data, care to guess as to how much the big carriers are going to charge us, the customer, for this now-mandatory requirement?

One can only imagine the cost of storing the NSAs requirements for oversight. All I do know is the costs sure as hell won't come out of the executive bonus fund. The customer will foot that bill. I promise you.

And forget deleting the data. Any of it. Ever. That's not an option.

Then the US government, for the sake of "redundancy", will still contract with some other 3rd party to store all of the same data over again, so they can create a new "Federal Communications Security Act" tax or some other horseshit to bilk the American people out of even more money, and fund PRISM v2.0

Oh...I'm sorry, did you actually believe they wouldn't do this again? Please. Besides, PRISM v2.0 has an app store, and the drone app I hear is killer.

I guess I don't understand the public uproar (2, Interesting)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about a year ago | (#45988847)

I know I'll be modded down for this, but whatever.

I just don't see the big deal over any of the surveillance going on. I guess that now the data is structured and easily searchable rather than having to stitch together random analog phone conversations. But in a country of 300 million people, no one is interested in your text messages, emails, etc. unless you're using them to actively plan something. The Internet is a collection of semi-public networks, always has been. And spying has always existed; that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

Everyone loves to bash the president, but I'll bet it's not an easy job. Imagine what it was like for Cold War presidents...when the Soviet Union was actively planning our destruction and we were planning theirs. Coming back from the inauguration party, you meet with your top generals and are told of every threat that hasn't been made public. On top of that, you're ultimately responsible for nuclear weapons AND you somehow have to make everyone like you. I imagine something like this happened with Obama...once he got the job he was briefed on what's actually happening outside of the public eye, and chose to continue the spying programs. Post 9/11, there were many people who didn't want to see that relatively minor event repeated at any cost, which is why these programs were put in place to begin with. An entity that was determined enough and had enough resources would be able to cause way worse devastation if they wanted to.

So call me an ignorant sheep or whatever -- I just don't see why so many people are up in arms. I'd expect the rabid anti-government crowd to be shouting their protests from within their mountaintop compounds, but not the average citizen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?