White House "Privacy Tour" a Flop On Its First Leg At MIT 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."
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."
Media Leaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also hypocritical since white house administrations use strategic leaks to release information they can't publicly admit to for political reasons.
Re:Media leaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I find the Guardian reporting interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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:First amendment cannot be abridged (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Media leaks legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.