Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States

NSA Officers Sometimes Spy On Love Interests 384

Posted by timothy
from the lives-of-others dept.
Jah-Wren Ryel writes "The latest twist in the NSA coverage sounds like something out of a dime-store romance novel — NSA agents eavesdropping on their current and former girlfriends. Official categories of spying have included SIGINT (signals intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence) and now the NSA has added a new category to the lexicon — LOVEINT — which is surely destined to be a popular hashtag now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Officers Sometimes Spy On Love Interests

Comments Filter:
  • by jamstar7 (694492) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @10:38AM (#44663669)

    Really is anyone surprised?

    Wasn't the oversight supposed to prevent this?

    Didn't the FISA court just reveal a few days ago that they can't do proper oversight on NSA? And nothing from the House Intelligence Committee either...

  • Re:Humans (Score:3, Informative)

    by hazeii (5702) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @11:19AM (#44663941) Homepage

    Em, it's already being used like that [washingtonsblog.com].

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Saturday August 24, 2013 @11:22AM (#44663963) Homepage

    According to TFA most incidents were "self reported", meaning someone failed a polygraph. Since polygraphs are bullshit we know a lot of times the criminal abusing this power got away with it.

  • by RogL (608926) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @12:02PM (#44664235) Homepage

    It is public knowledge the corporate security contractors had full access to the information being gathered under the NSA auspices. Private for profit individuals with total and full access to all the intelligence information

    I'm going to need a cite for that because I've been following this pretty closely and this is the first I've heard of private citizens having "total and full access" to the NSA's data.

    Wasn't Snowden a corporate security contractor?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24, 2013 @12:11PM (#44664299)

    hedwards (correctly IMHO) deduced the poster is racist from this comment:

    "...everyone not merely the black man."

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @01:21PM (#44664683)

    If Obama can arrange to have his dog Bo airlifted to Martha's Vineyard

    It isn't like the 2nd helicopter was only for the dog. It was carrying all the personnel and equipment that didn't fit in the first helicopter with the president.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24, 2013 @01:36PM (#44664799)

    No, polygraphs are not 85-95% reliable. More like 50%. So save some time and money and just flip a coin.

    What's next, phrenology? Polygraphs are scientifically invalid. If you are asked to take one just laugh in their face, and say you would prefer using a seance to have your long-dead grandfather testify.

  • by jpublic (3023069) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @11:05PM (#44667259)

    The hypocrisy of the /. crowd it quite stunning : most of them would do exactly the same if given the chance.

    No. You don't get to decide what other people would do if they were put in a different situation and then decide that they're hypocritical because of the actions they took in your delusions.

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @11:20PM (#44667323)

    I work in the medical field also and have personally seen it happen. We had someone who was in a position of IT power and had been with the organization awhile. He was caught looking at things he shouldn't have been and was immediately fired. This was a guy whose job security - before this incident - seemed rock solid, no previous incidents (to my knowledge which admittedly might not be perfect in this matter). Just one day there and the next day gone. He wasn't even allowed to clear out his office right then. They had him come back another day and - under a careful eye to make sure he only took his own stuff - let him clear out his office.

    The more power (and access to information counts as "power") you have, the steeper the penalties should be for abusing that power. If the NSA is going to have access to nearly everything whenever they want (something I think they shouldn't have), they should have STRICT penalties for misusing said access. They should have systems that double-check access and the first time you search for something you shouldn't, you're FIRED!

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...