Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House "Privacy Tour" a Flop On Its First Leg At MIT

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the thanks-to-officials-flipping-out dept.

Privacy 83

v3rgEz writes "After the Snowden revelations, President Obama promised greater transparency on how the federal government collects and uses data on its citizens, including a three-leg 'privacy tour' to discuss the balance between security and privacy. Well, the first leg of the tour is up and — surprise, surprise — it's not much of a conversation, with official dodging questions or, in one case, simply walking out of the conference." There's a video of the workshop at MIT, and the article says not all of it was spent watching politicians be politicians: "The review, led by White House counselor John Podesta ... is not confined to intelligence gathering but is meant also to examine how private entities collect and use mass quantities of personal information, such as health records and Internet browsing habits. On the latter subject, the conversation was robust. Experts from places like MIT, Harvard, Nielsen, and Koa Labs traded pros and cons, and proposed high-tech compromises that could allow people to contribute personal information to big data pools anonymously. "

An Anonymous reader also wrote in that "Outgoing National Security Agency boss General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."

cancel ×

83 comments

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

Media leaks legislation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408063)

Media leaks legislation?

When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?

Re:Media leaks legislation (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 months ago | (#46408167)

Media leaks legislation?

When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?

I guess the answer depends on what side of the Mason Dixon line you live on.

Re:Media leaks legislation (3, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#46410153)

Media leaks legislation?

When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?

I guess the answer depends on what side of the Mason Dixon line you live on.

And, for those on the South side of the line, the color of your skin.

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412227)

That was about slavery you dolt, not freedom.

If the southerners had freed the slaves, the civil war never would have occurred, so quit being obtuse.

One persons freedoms cannot abrogate another person's rights.

Re:Media leaks legislation (3, Informative)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 5 months ago | (#46412781)

Do not fall for the propaganda that the civil war was about slavery. Read up about it and you will find the north had slaves also. In fact slavery was already phasing out in all locations due to economic reasons, the invention of the cotton gin being a big one. The real reason the civil war was fought was to stop the southern states from leaving the union. It was the first big power grab by the federal government. After that point we were no longer a collection of states that ruled themselves but worked together in union. Instead we became one country which is ruled by people who have no knowledge or interest in the local conditions of any area.

Re:Media leaks legislation (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 5 months ago | (#46413951)

The war was about secession, but secession was about slavery. If the South had not feared the abolition of slavery, it would not have seceded. After the war started, slavery was mostly a political and diplomatic issue, quite successfully used as most Englishmen did not want to support slavery (unlike the North, which had quite a few people with no problems with it).

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416747)

but secession was about slavery. If the South had not feared the abolition of slavery, it would not have seceded.

THE WAR STARTED BEFORE SLAVERY WAS EVER BROUGHT UP AS AN ISSUE DUMB!@#!!!

You're a complete idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417997)

Sure...that's why when listing reasons for secession SLAVERY was the reason listed you DUMBASS. For Pete's sake at least know what the hell you're talking about before you type. The entire war was about slavery, because removing slavery would have and did destroy the south's "capital" investments.

Top 5 reasons for the civil war...every one of them touches on slavery, so shut your stupid type hole because you're a moron.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

Re:Media leaks legislation (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 5 months ago | (#46415793)

It was about states' rights. A state's right to enslvave 3/5 of its population.

Re: Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416887)

It was over states' rights, and slavery did not even become a consideration until about halfwaythrough the war when Lincoln realized it made strategic sense to lure in southern slaves to fight on behalf of the north, both in the conventional sense as well as from an insurectionary point of view.

Ultimately the roots of the problem could be traced back to the founding of the nation and disagreements between federalists (such as Alexander Hamilton) and constitutionalists/jeffersonian republicans (such as Thomas Jefferson, not even close to the modern day Ripon, WI founded republican party).
Ultimately a great number of internal political conflicts are just the perspecrives of competing capitalist factions, whereby one side or the other enlists the bodies, as well as hearts and minds, of the rest of us to fight for this cause or that. So while Northerners supported federalism and the right to tax states to pay for things, they used slavery as the hot-button/wedge issue that would win hearts and minds, while stocking the morgues with fresh bodies of powerless idealists.

Some day we the people might again rise up and overthrow our masters as we did to England, but it will not happen so long as we continue to side one way or another with any capitalist interest group.

Consider this a call: regardless your feelings on ANY issue, make a part of your mandate for alteration that it not include ANY political party, especially the major two.

Another apologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46418155)

First state to secede cited SLAVERY as a cause. FFS have half a brain and know what you're talking about before just making stupid made up shit up.

South Carolina cited the federal government's refusal to enforce the Fugitive SLAVE Act as their reason for secession you complete moron.

Re:Media leaks legislation (5, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 5 months ago | (#46408289)

Media leaks legislation?

When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?

The moment the political class concerned itself more with the accumulation of,power and money for a few, rather than say running the country in a balanced manner for the greater good of all its citizens. Media leaks mean Informed Citizens, which may threaten corrupt power slightly more than if the citizens were left in the dark.

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408381)

So, 1791 at least.

Re:Media leaks legislation (5, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46408501)

Bullshit Politician-speak: "We're making real constructive advances in improving national security and our ability to fight terrorism, through planned media leaks legislation."

Non-bullshit Translation: "We're going to start throwing reporters in prison if they tell the public about any of the evil, unconstitutional shit we're doing in secret."

Re:Media leaks legislation (2)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about 5 months ago | (#46408975)

Bullshit Politician-speak: "reporters lack the ability to properly analyze"

Bullshit Politician-speak: "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!"

Re:Media leaks legislation (1)

jamiesan (715069) | about 5 months ago | (#46409729)

Harumph

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412251)

I didn't get a harumph out of that Obama person over there...

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416157)

THe Bullshit is how the Media already pushes government propaganda. And flat out careless if they report anything remotely truthful.

People already had long known about this wide spread spying, so this wasn't news to begin with. And even if you ban the media/press from reporting it, those that want the public to know will find other means in which the press would have no choice but to report it. Since it wasn't leaked from them, but picked up on from previous reports.

"General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."
I'm curious if the name Alexander is somehow linked to being a communist leader?

Re:Media leaks legislation (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46418297)

THe Bullshit is how the Media already pushes government propaganda. And flat out careless if they report anything remotely truthful.

Yes, but this threat wasn't aimed at the mainstream reporters who already toe the government line and report the official propaganda. It's aimed at outliers like Glenn Greenwald who actually tell the truth to power.

Re:Media leaks legislation (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46408827)

The press started working for the government. Not sure when, but the media merged with the government at least during the Iraq invasion. They were all instrumental in starting the war. [worldpublicopinion.org] Once it got going, they fired [theguardian.com] anyone [blogspot.com.br] who dared question whether the war was a good idea.

The white house press corp pretty clearly works for the white house. They take the propaganda verbatim and publish it.

I think that mindset explains why the government thinks media leak legislation is appropriate. They see their employees as misbehaving. For that matter, the media masters are probably accepting it in exchange for goodies. "Tell you what, Obama, we'll accept more muzzling of our reporters. That will go for these online news source up and comers double, right? And you won't have a problem with Rupert Murdoch/whoever taking a complete monopoly over all news, right? He's promised us new mansions."

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409765)

This happened during the first Gulf War as well. It was distinctly different than the more confrontational approach of the media during the Vietnam conflict.

Re:Media leaks legislation (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 5 months ago | (#46410777)

FTFA:

The specific legislation to which Alexander referred was unclear. Angela Canterbury, the policy director for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said she was unaware of any such bill. Neither was Steve Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.

Re:Media leaks legislation (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 5 months ago | (#46411981)

FTFA:

The specific legislation to which Alexander referred was unclear. Angela Canterbury, the policy director for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said she was unaware of any such bill. Neither was Steve Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.

Well, duh!

The laws were passed and signed into law by the secret FISA Congress and the secret FISA POTUS, naturally!

I'm sure the secret FISA SCOTUS has already reviewed these laws and found them reasonable & necessary.

The Secret FISA VISA.

It's everywhere you want to spy!!

I wonder how long it will take for attacks on the NSA's and their contractors' workers by the public to start?

Strat

given the track record... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437655)

I would assume the legislation itself is secret.

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412379)

Wilson Administration.

Re:Media leaks legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412453)

When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?

Since forever. Every government is an enemy of freedom.

Why do you think the US constitution was written the way it is?

It is a non-exhaustive blacklist, denying them from doing specific things.

Media leaks? (2)

sotweed (118223) | about 5 months ago | (#46408123)

Hmm..... sounds a lot like prior restraint, doesn't it? Someone leaks some information
that the gummint doesn't want known, and so the press can't publish the leak? This is
pretty scary...

Re:Media leaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408237)

The legislation against leakers already states they can't use their reason for leaking the information in their defense, either at trial or at sentencing. Of course this used to not be a big deal as leakers were almost never prosecuted, but something changed a little over 5 years ago and now leakers are going to jail left and right.

Re:Media leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408325)

The legislation against leakers already states they can't use their reason for leaking the information in their defense, either at trial or at sentencing. Of course this used to not be a big deal as leakers were almost never prosecuted, but something changed a little over 5 years ago and now leakers are going to jail left and right.

Something changed: We lurched further into fascism, that is what changed. The 1% fight to extend their grip on power, and leaker's are a big threat to that.

Re:Media leaks? (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46408535)

Bullshit, people re-electing retards who become engrossed with their power in congress leads us to these things. Congress does two things, it either never reacts or then it overreacts. That's what happened here and because the American public has been complacent with a two party system you get idiots like Feinbitch and her bunch of retarded cronies voting for legislation that makes these things happen. The 1% don't control elections, sure they can buy air time but it's up to the voter to learn about the issues and make an informed choice, not to go and vote for the status quo.

We have the FISA court because of legislation passed by congress, it's not in the constitution it was passed by a legislative act. We have the NSA by a legislative act and it's not in the constitution. Both of these can easily be eliminated by another legislative act and all it takes is enough voters putting candidates into office who'll get rid of both of them. But never mind, nobody will go and vote or get informed on the issues. They'll tweet about it but not really go and do anything about it. That's not where the 1% win but the Democrats and Republicans win.

Re:Media leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408595)

No the 1% don't control elections, they just own the presidential candidates on both sides [startpage.com] , if you could even call them sides...

Re:Media leaks? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46408633)

Bullshit, people re-electing retards who become engrossed with their power in congress leads us to these things.

Not necessarily; for example, in the last election my district voted in a "Tea Party" candidate, whose entire campaign was based around the concept that he was "fed up" with the status quo in DC. So, he got himself into office, handed his auctioneering company over to a friend... and proceeded to become part of the exact same status quo he campaigned against. Like, the very first fucking day.

I think the problem isn't that we're "re-electing retards;" I think the problem is that anyone who isn't already a wealthy oligarch doesn't stand a chance of so much as getting on the ballot, let alone gaining enough support to actually win an election.

Until we de-rig the election process to allow candidates from demographics other than "filthy fucking rich" to actually stand a chance, nothing will change. At least, not for the better.

Re:Media leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409367)

The legislation against leakers already states they can't use their reason for leaking the information in their defense, either at trial or at sentencing. Of course this used to not be a big deal as leakers were almost never prosecuted, but something changed a little over 5 years ago and now leakers are going to jail left and right.

Something changed: We lurched further into fascism, that is what changed. The 1% fight to extend their grip on power, and leaker's are a big threat to that.

Sorry, that lurch happened sometime in the late 90s, if not before.

I don't know why Republicans hate Clinton so much, he pushed their policies more than any president since Reagan.

Re:Media leaks? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 5 months ago | (#46410871)

I don't know why Republicans hate Clinton so much, he pushed their policies more than any president since Reagan.

Well that's really not saying much, considering that only includes ONE president for ONE term...

Re:Media leaks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412035)

I don't know why Republicans hate Clinton so much, he pushed their policies more than any president since Reagan.

Because he was a Democrat.

At least he wasn't Black, though.

Re:Media leaks? (3, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 months ago | (#46408573)

It's also hypocritical since white house administrations use strategic leaks to release information they can't publicly admit to for political reasons.

First amendment cannot be abridged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408143)

Good luck with that, Gen. Alexander.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46408291)

That's why the ass said it while outgoing -- he knew he'd be fired.

"They were right to detain and hassle (journalists)". I'll side with a journalist, even yellow scumbuckets, over people deliberately building tools of tyrrany which, history shows, will inevitably be abused in the service of dictatorship.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46408317)

1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years
no threats
no panics
no releasing classified info

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408709)

no releasing classified info

Especially when that classified information shows government wrongdoing and ignoring the Constitution.

Sorry, but malfeasance on the behalf of the government is trumped by the need of citizens to know their politicians are ignoring the law.

This is just trying to prevent this information from coming to light.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (4, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 5 months ago | (#46408819)

1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years ... no releasing classified info

You are mistaken. See The Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org] and Daniel Ellsberg [wikipedia.org] as the iconic example case.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409691)

so using those guidelines, just classify everything that has to do with governing. Now no one is allowed to even discuss policy. sound fun?

no releasing classified info (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412037)

The classification system hasn't existed for hundreds of years? In any meaningful way the current classification system is probably less than 70 years old. Before that there certainly were times where secrets were kept, but only during times of war and even then only things specifically pertinent to military strategy (number of weapons, troop movements, etc). Today we have a perpetual "state of war" and "classified" information can include 50 year old intelligence budgets, presidential visitor logs, illegal activities, reports on defense spending.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (2)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46415313)

1st amendment has been limited for hundreds of years

Wrong. Read it. No limitations are listed. All this means is that the government is ignoring it, and has been for a long time.

Re:First amendment cannot be abridged (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46408597)

Since when has the military or the immense national security titan given a fuck about respecting the Constitution? Who exactly do you think is going to stop them? The Congress that doesn't even really want to know what's going on and happily puts a rubber stamp on any legislation with "national security" written on it? The spineless Supreme Court that also rubber-stamps everything and has no means of enforcing their weak-ass rulings anyway?

I swear to support and defend the Constitution of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414055)

That's the oath I gave when I was 21 and I meant every word of it. I still do. Who the fuck are you talking about? The military is run by civilians you moron. They don't make a move without civilian approval, dolt. That's the way it was originally set up and hopefully it'll remain that way long after I'm dead and buried.

Now what should scare you is the civilian shitheads running the asylum. Those fuckers are batshit crazy.

What did you expect? (1, Flamebait)

korbulon (2792438) | about 5 months ago | (#46408235)

"Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"?

You've got to remember that these are just simple data farmers. These are people from the government. The common clay of the new domestic spying apparatus. You know... morons.

Also, this Keith Alexander guy: just what a cunt.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

korbulon (2792438) | about 5 months ago | (#46408523)

Downvoted? Really?! Christ almighty! NSA bitches abound.

Re:What did you expect? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408831)

So far, it appears that there are no comments modded above 1 in this thread. The threshold is 2 by default.
Personally, I think that calling Keith Alexander a cunt is fair. Since this comment will never be seen anyways, I'm also going to vocalize support for Death Panels for members of Congress and vested interest in the guillotine.

Not by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414193)

That was quite possibly the best adaptaion of a Blazing Saddles classic line I've run across in a long time.
+5 just for the laughs alone.

Media Leaks? (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46408271)

Media Leaks aren't well liked by people doing dirty, underhanded things. In the case of the Military they never like the press publishing anything that shows er well maybe their soldiers wiping out a village of innocent civilians or in this case when the Government is caught spying on everybody, leveraging secret courts for permission while not disclosing their full intent and omitting or outright lying to congressional oversight about what they did. Sure the press can be an "annoyance" to those who would continue to subvert our liberties in the name of preserving them. General Alexander has demonstrated that he's an idiot with a Star Trek fetish [youtube.com] and because his clandestine world is now mostly in the open, he's crying foul? Sorry I'm of the mind that General Alexander needs to be put in the stocks in the Washington Mall for three days and I want the rotten tomato concession.

Re:Media Leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408991)

Seriously doubt anything on media leaks could be prevented in the US short of a constitutional amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The blow back from such a law (that would be challenged in the supreme court) would be huge.

Re:Media Leaks? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 5 months ago | (#46409319)

That's why it's just this idiot blowing smoke, threatening the people & press.

But not actually doing anything about it.

Well, other than monitoring them more closely.

They don't need to do anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412321)

They don't need to do anything but keep conning people into voting for them. The constitution forbids a lot of things that both federal and state governments continue to do anyways. The trick is to rewrite the dictionary and common sense to suit your needs. It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society, however supreme court judges have said that the definition of "limited time" is infinity -1. The federal government only has the right to become involved in state/local activities when it effects "interstate commerce", so "interstate commerce" is interpreted to mean basically anything that exists, even choosing to grow/not grow a plant on your own property for use only on your property falls under "interstate commerce" according to the government.

Re:They don't need to do anything... (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46415335)

It is explicitly stated that patents are for a "limited time" for the benefit of society

As far as I know, patents last 20 years. Copyright is what lasts a truly ridiculous period of time, but it's still technically limited.

And that's the problem. While there are definitely many cases of the government violating the constitution, the constitution is poorly written and doesn't put enough limits on the government's power.

What can one do? (0)

Rigel47 (2991727) | about 5 months ago | (#46408279)

It's so sad to see these sociopaths consolidate power and further desecrate the Constitution. But I just don't what to do about it.. give money to the ACLU - check. Support Rand Paul - check -- but he doesn't stand a chance.

I feel like I'm watching a friend die from inoperable cancer.

Re:What can one do? (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46409587)

I recently had a thought that might help - organize election-day festivals near polling places, something interesting to do to tempt the politically disillusioned and apathetic to come out and enjoy some good music and food. And since they're right next door anyway, encourage them to go vote for *any* third party candidates. Over half the country doesn't vote in most elections, if we can get them organized to "Vote Out the Sock Puppets" we could sweep the election, and maybe, just maybe, start things moving in a more populist direction. If nothing else some notable victories could empower a more dramatic showing in the next election. Maybe even inspire some honest well-meaning people to try their hand at politics.

Re:What can one do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409775)

organize election-day festivals near polling places

Easily thwarted.

"Do you have a permit to hold that festival here? No? I'm sorry, you're a security risk to the democratic process. We will have to ask you to vacate immediately, and hand over all that expensive sound equipment for erm... evidence. Yeah, evidence."

Eerily similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408361)

Reminds me of discussing Beta with Slashdot...

One stop spying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408373)

"and proposed high-tech compromises that could allow people to contribute personal information to big data pools anonymously." -- and why, pray tell, would I willing give all my personal data "anonymously" to some massive database run by a corporation (likely with government oversight) that almost certainly ties my data to "unique identifiers" to ensure the integrity of their database?

Or am I just supposed to nod stupidly and send them all my records....?

Re:One stop spying? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 5 months ago | (#46409861)

Hey. Do you like FireFly? Wish it would continue? When would you watch it? When are you free to watch it?

This is the sort of information that you WANT to give the people making decisions about such things. They want to make something you want. You want them to stop fucking shit up and give you want you want. Communicating that sort of information is tricky.

First off, no, I don't think anyone in their right mind would simply hand over all their records and sign away all their privacy. That's bloody stupid. But I imagine there are a few select details and personal views that you'd be willing to shout at some execs with a loudspeaker if you had the chance.

Second, if it's anonymous and open to all, the quality of that data is going to be abysmally low as every shill, marketer, and PR corporation is going to game it as hard as they can to make a buck. There is a very active dis-information campaign against the truth. It's called marketing.

So the underlying reason for why this politician would suggest such a thing isn't so crazy out there. But it's almost certainly worthless bullshit because it's a laughably unworkable solution.

Overwhelming ennui! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408387)

This makes me feel so despondent...

The government is taking a giant shit on the Constitution. Freedom of the press my ass!

And we're gonna give them a kill-switch for our phones? We're letting them strip away all our rights...

I feel like the frog...except I see it coming...

Damn, we are so fucked.

Damn...

Re:Overwhelming ennui! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425289)

Even if you yourself realize just how fucked we are. And get everyone of your peers to also realize how fucked we are and want to do something about it...

We're still fucked. There's enough stupid lemmings now that anyone with a brain is completely outnumbered.

And we're all going over the edge no matter if we want to or not. You can't fight it. Doing so is a waste of effort and time.

Majority rules. And the majority are blindingly stupid.

So grab a beer. Lets sit back and watch the walls come down. Because there's nothing we can do about it. So you might as well enjoy it.

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (4, Informative)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about 5 months ago | (#46408507)

Obama outed his atrocious attitude toward privacy back when he "halted his campaign" to run back to Washington to vote for FISA.

I'm considered a "far leftie" in the US, in case you think this comment came from the GOP noise machine.

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409717)

Amazing how both liberals and conservatives can put their differences aside when it comes time to fuck the public over. Almost everything in Washington that gets bi-partisan support is fucked up.

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#46409953)

Sad is the day when far leftists so blindly support the President and Executive Branch that it cannot be believed that they would ever deviate, merely because the executive is behaving tyrannically.

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46410179)

Except that's bullshit, lots of "far leftists" don't trust the President or ANYTHING that comes out of our flawed 2 party system that is center right to BEGIN with.

Fox News intellects be damned to themselves!

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46411241)

Sad is the day when far leftists so blindly support the President and Executive Branch that it cannot be believed that they would ever deviate, merely because the executive is behaving tyrannically.

Because they were terrified of the far right getting elected in for another 4 years and behaving tyrannically.

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46411441)

Sad is the day when far leftists so blindly support the President and Executive Branch that it cannot be believed that they would ever deviate, merely because the executive is behaving tyrannically.

Please stop confusing Democrats with leftists. One group has a political agenda for increasing their own power; one group has a social and cultural agenda that occasionally coincides with one or the other of the major US political parties.

Re:The only surprise is that anyone is surprised (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 5 months ago | (#46412819)

No. Both groups have agendas for increasing their own power. But they aren't the same group.

I'm surprised if they answered ANY questions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408527)

These people are liars publicly, so why are we listening to their "best practices" ideas about privacy when we KNOW we don't trust them?

I find the Guardian reporting interesting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46408693)

I find it interesting that I have to find out what is happening in this country, from the British newspapers. Where is the NYT or Washington Post, in reporting what is going on, and how we are losing our rights?

Re:I find the Guardian reporting interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409173)

The moment the "homeland security" was created we in europe were thinking, "eh, isn't that pretty much a direct translations of the SS?"

Re:I find the Guardian reporting interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409665)

...Where is the NYT or Washington Post, in reporting what is going on...

Well, who owns them now? Who makes the decision that reporting celebrity gossip is more important?

Re:I find the Guardian reporting interesting (1)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about 5 months ago | (#46412011)

Only problem is, after The Guardian were threatened by their home government [abc.net.au] , they moved their web site from .co.uk to .com (go to http://www.theguardian.co.uk/ [theguardian.co.uk] and see where you end up), because of the first amendment right in the US. In the UK, there is no such protection for the press or free speech.

So with this new "media leaks legislation", where will they go next? Brazil, Ecuador? Or maybe Russia; that would really be the epitome of irony.

media leaks legislation???? (1)

sribe (304414) | about 5 months ago | (#46408757)

Has this asshole ever read the 1st amendment???

Re:media leaks legislation???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46410041)

His belief in God should have no bearing...errr, amendment? No.

Re:media leaks legislation???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46411075)

Has this asshole ever read the 1st amendment???

Sure. It is part of his job to read enemy propaganda.

A good review from Andy Oram (O'Reilly) (1)

davecb (6526) | about 5 months ago | (#46408905)

Andy writes, at The technical aspects of privacy [oreilly.com] , "The first of three public workshops kicked off a conversation with the federal government on data privacy in the US... hearing news all the time about new technical assaults on individual autonomy, I found the circumscribed scope of the conference disappointing. "

Guardian article in last link (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46409603)

Alexander says that the media has not the ability for judgment of surveillance programs. "... ' journalists have no standing when it comes to national security issues. They don’t know how to weigh the fact of what they’re giving out and saying, is it in the nation’s interest to divulge this,' Alexander said."

Are the spooks (which most of the secuity appartus isn't anyway) the ONLY people who know how to judge government activity? I don't think so. What this clown probably means is more like 'we want unfettered power and we don't anyone to see us taking it and using it.' That being the case, I think the journalists see things pretty clearly and have made the correct assessment.

If it's supposed to be security concerning the nation, don't the citizens of the nation in question have standing, if it's a free, democracy? If not, explain to me who does. Without double speak or scaremongering.

Alexander the Prick (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 5 months ago | (#46410619)

I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier

aka The Alien and Sedition Act 2.0

The Privacy Tour in my Head (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 5 months ago | (#46410631)

Hey everyone! Welcome to our Privacy tour! Let's meet everyone in the room! Hi, what's your name? Eric? I think we have a picture of Eric's dong... yes, here it is! We got this while you were Yahoo web chatting. Who else is here? Dave? Do we... yes we have a picture of Dave's dong. This one wasn't too hard to get, since he uses Chat Roulette. Who else do we have here? Sam? Sam was quite a difficult one, but we finally got a picture of his dong after our agents set up a gay men playing with olive oil site... hey... where's everyone going?

Buttfucking made easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46412181)

To reinterpret Keith Alexander's quote: "Outgoing National Security Agency boss General Keith Alexander says reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers and that forthcoming responses to the spying revelations may include 'media leaks legislation.' 'I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,' Alexander said."

I am tired of the press getting everybody up in a tizzy about the fact that I buttfuck all the citizens. Once legislation passes allowing me to buttfuck the press, I can get back to buttfucking all the citizens in peace. Hey, like I said, I am an optimist.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>