U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years 186
arnott writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism. The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence community's clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident."
I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised there is even a 5 year limit- figured they would keep that data indefinately. I'm sure they have loopholes to allow them to keep the data on anyone that they think is "interesting".
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
A moving target ... just like extending copyrights so works don't end up in the public domain?
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.
(And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is correct.
It is a common misconception that the Supreme Court is all about "justice".
It's not. It's about "Constitutional". If the Constitution says "Congress may do this", then by God, Congress is allowed to do this.
If you think Copyright terms being effectively unlimited is a problem, start trying to convince Congress to amend the Constitution. It's not like Congress particularly cares one way or the other how l
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's just a fuck-up then since the guy was obviously a terrorist. Listen to all his hate-speech about the blood of patriots and the benefits of revolution!
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew al-Qaeda had a cell in America that long ago...
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the argument wasn't made that it was effectively unlimited if it exceeded a normal lifespan, or that such an argument, if made, failed.
That argument wouldn't have flown because the court already agreed that "finite time with infinite potential for future retro-active extensions" was "effectively unlimited" in a much more real sense that merely exceeding the author's life span, but that because it wasn't literally unlimited at any given time it wasn't unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to grant copyright monopolies for a limited time, and the law that was under review specified a limited time and so was Constitutional. The court was simply unwilling to say that the current specified time was "too long", or otherwise eliminate this effective power Congress had to make copyright indefinite by placing a real limit on the power when such was not supported by the Constitution.
It was an imminently conservative dec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do racist pricks need so much attention on slashdot? Because they know anywhere else they will get kicked in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have seen ESPN tonight- the comment section on an article about the Miami Heat rallying for the kid who got killed turned into a complete race war. It was ugly.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry about being added to the list. You're probably there unless you live a very boring, very sheltered life and speak to no one.
Don't be alarmed. This is all for safety and security. Just not yours.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
no one here can prove that data EVER gets destroyed.
that's all.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Funny)
no one here can prove that data EVER gets destroyed.
So the US government is going to hire Facebook to handle data storage?
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Funny)
Dont be silly. They hire Facebook to GET the data in the first place!
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's called an FBI file...
That we occasionally get a released FBI file on a long-dead political activist, or on an entertainer, or on a politician, or on a civil rights leader... draw your own conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get your knickers in a twist. They've had an FBI file on me since the 70's. It was part of my background check for security clearance in the military. AFAIK, they still have it, though
Re: (Score:2)
You can request your FBI file from them- and if they have one they will send it.
I'm sure there are some "top-secret" reasons they wouldn't- but supposedly they should.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you didn't have an FBI file, does requesting your FBI file cause them to open an FBI file on you?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably. So the trick is to request the file- and then request another file a few months later to see if requesting your file made them create one... if it didn't...
But perhaps they only keep a file on you if you request it twice- so a few months after the second request- request it a third time...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.getmyfbifile.com/form.php [getmyfbifile.com]
If anyone wanted a link. (I'm not affiliated with the site.)
Re: (Score:2)
Face Book Information...
Cost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Data that can be used against someone politically never becomes worthless while that person is alive and not in prison yet.
"$X years ago you were involved with $political_movement therefor you are an America hating democracy killing $name_of_currently_disliked_group."
Re: (Score:3)
Hosting all that data costs money. From a law enforcement point of view it's probably worthless after 5 years anyway.
But you're missing the point. Politically and citizen-control-wise, it can be worth far, far more than gold. Absolutely worth it, to them, to spend our money (not theirs) on it. Just another tax and tick on the debt clock that will never cost *them* a dime.
They have to take our money to retain the data, so that when we get angry because they take our money to retain the data, they can use the data they retained to protect themselves from the citizens who are angry that they're retaining the data.
It's turtle
Re: (Score:2)
Who says you have to continually host it? Pull out the archive drives and store them. Still costs some money, but how many TBs could you stuff into a moderately sized broom closet? Besides, knowledge is power, and when you know more about them than they know about you...
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a question- How do you prove that they did get rid of your data after 5 years? Somehow I doubt that security files ever get truly destroyed.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hope. Change. We are the ones that we've been waiting for. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:4, Insightful)
Acknowledging this is election cycle politics doesn't excuse behavior, it explains behavior.
It's hardly a free pass. Almost everything that happens in politics is due to re-election. The deficit limit shenanigans that resulted in a lower credit rating, and higher borrowing costs, were an election gambit to appease the tea party and fiscal responsibility types. The entire 1980's and more were one big "I'm tougher on crime" pissing match to get votes.
Understanding how laws are passed is the first step in preventing bad laws being passed. The next step is a true institutional memory where abuses are archived, and included in SuperPAC funded advertisements right before the next election.
Your actions will not be forgotten, is the message.
The next step, is to get the people who actually care out to vote.
After that, we need honest people to get pissed off enough that they run for office just so the establishment doesn't keep reinforcing itself. Without the earlier steps, this guy won't stand a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the Prez, about 1 year or so. If you include all Fed elections, maybe 6 months. Once you add in state stuff, might be 3 months. Kind of depressing, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Not completely convinced on the SuperPAC, as that risks introducing spin, but absolutely we need to understand why things happen if we're to modify them and we absolutely need to make sure that things aren't swept under the rug. I recognize people change, but change cannot happen without first acknowledging that there was something to change in the first place.
Hope and Change (Score:3, Funny)
I Hope we Change our President this year
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your own fault if you keep voting for/limiting yourself to only two, and usually lousy, choices! Expand your options is all I can say...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And replace him with what....Romney? Gingrich?! Santorum??!!
Let's face it. Whomever wins the next presidential election, the citizens will lose.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ron Paul
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so. The remaining 10-20% falls into the "meh" category.
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
After reading Ron Paul's book 'Liberty Defined', the very name of which is nothing but spin, I am more convinced than ever that he is just one more right wing politician who has found a way to more or less disassociate himself from the rest of the right wing politicians by marketing his 'small government' line of bullshit.
He will shrink government by killing democratic programs, nothing more, nothing less.
To those of you haven't read his publications, I suggest you do so - and please try and read a bit beyo
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it better to attempt to radically change something, even if it upsets the system, instead of hoping that more of the same will be an improvement?
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so.
50% bat-shit crazy beats 100% crook any day in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that's the problem with supporting him.
The problem with electing him is that regardless of whether he's on the mark or bat-shit crazy he will stick to his principles and not compromise.
This is why he will never be elected president, and shouldn't be elected president. Being the President of a country is about politics. Politics requires compromising in the face of reality. I've already had enough of a leader who sticks to their ideology against reality.
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)
His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
...
I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.
Re: (Score:3)
That's been the problem for the last several election cycles. I haven't seen a real candidate since, well, hell, I don't think I've ever seen a real candidate, and I'm pushing 60!
Re: (Score:2)
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
Re: (Score:2)
As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
When did he say that? I would in no way be surprised if he did say that, but a google search didn't return anything.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
an early 2007 debate. He was telling Congressman Paul that he should be quiet (Paul is pro-defense but against preemptive wars of aggression).
Re: (Score:2)
"(Paul is pro-defense but against preemptive wars of aggression)."
"but"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Older folks in Russia always like to say how they felt safer in the old Soviet Union. They didn't get the opinion of the people who went to the gulags though.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it.
That's a great idea, and I know just where to start! There's a guy who organized the illegal killing of several Americans in Yemen with a large explosion. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. He has many of accomplices working elsewhere in Washington as well as nearby Arlington, VA.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget their running buddies o
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, I'm just figuring you start with the guy we know was involved in this particular plot (he bragged about it in public) and know exactly where he is (our security agencies make a big effort to track his every movement quite closely). Once you've picked up him, the next step is clearly to waterboard him until he tells us all about his accomplices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My former sig seems appropriate here:
Only through obedience and faith can we preserve our way of life against authoritarian fanaticism"
I don't get it. (Score:2)
From the joint DNI/DOJ statement [dni.gov]:
"The updated Guidelines do not provide any new authorities for the U.S. Government to collect information, nor do they authorize acquisition of data from entities outside the federal government. All information that would be accessed by NCTC under the Guidelines is already in the lawful custody and control of other federal agencies. The Guidelines merely provide the NCTC with a more effective means of accessing and analyzing datasets in the government’s possession th
Actual Santorum Quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You did. You missed the part where nobody said anything about Santorum being president.
Look at what happened in Toulouse (Score:3)
I really fail to understand how this data is used and if anyone actually checks it or if it is kept in order to incriminate you later. See what happened in Toulouse last week: a man who went in and out Afghanistan and Pakistan, was known to the police, went in and out of jail a couple of times, was known to frequent an extremist group, still managed to kill children in a school and keep the police busy for two days under siege.
Shouldn't he have been stopped before?
I don't understand, really.
Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Stopped for doing what? Traveling? Is that now illegal too? (Oh yes of course it is; you can't fly domestically without the SA's permission.)
Re: (Score:2)
still managed to kill children in a school
Just a couple of days after he went out to kill a soldier.
Twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA claims to have some super-secret data-mining operation going on... but a lot of people are doubtful about how effective such a thing could be.
Don't worry, the NSA knows who these doubters are and they will use it against them at sometime in the future.
Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"
More proof... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Americans. All my life I've felt the biggest immediate threat to my freedoms has been the American government and things have just gotten worse in the 40 years I've been paying attention.
Thank god for Obama! (Score:5, Funny)
If it were Bush it would be 10 years!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well at lest Guantanamo is closed, o wait
Re: (Score:2)
So - eight minutes of fear, hate and war mongering have no bearing on what's happening now?
Absolutely Obama hasn't done enough to change things. No doubt about that.
But with that said, Bush and Friends not only set the wheels in motion, but they did everything to ensure that the switches on the tracks were broken and locked into place and that the brake mechanisms were removed.
What terrorism? (Score:2)
Didn't terrorism end after they killed Bin Laden?
Re: (Score:3)
Double plus good! (Score:2)
"Oh say does that start spangled banner yet wave....
o'er the land of the free, or the home of the slave?"
foreigners (Score:3)
So the situation for foreigners must be much worse...
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Basically US agencies have the cart blanche for spying on any non-US citizens in any way they like. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have built a giant database with all information about any non-US person they can gather just because they can.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious about how long they store those fingerprints they collect at border crossings, actually (God, what a hassle!). Also, what they do to them if the person crossed becomes a citizen later on.
Re: (Score:2)
They're digitized and stored forever. You think they toss fingerprints?
I hate stories like this because.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need Mulder and Scully (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, cue the retards who will try to skewer you for being "soft" on terrorists. Never mind the fact that more people die in auto accidents every few weeks than died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001. A healthy perspective is not something that fearful people usually have. That's why it is doubly shameful for our leaders to still fanning the flames of that fear, rather than helping us to collectively regain our perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.
You make two assumptions here that history has proven to more or less be invalid:
1) The government is actually, genuinely interested in stopping terrorism.
2) Stopping terrorism is more important than say, making money.
Gosh (Score:2)
Buy stock in hard drive manufacturers (Score:2)
This is the kind of stuff... (Score:2)
The US is currently pressuring various European countries to open their police databases to automated queries by US authorities. This kind of stuff is the reason that the smarter European countries are refusing. The US has no concept of privacy laws - once data is released to one agency, you can pretty much assume that they will share it willy nilly with other agencies. The data retention laws are incredibly lax. In the end, you have zero assurance what happens to personal data, once the government has it.
P
Not surprising (Score:2)
They need legislation to somehow make this legal.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 [wired.com] ...and the other posters are right...in 5 years they'll make it 10. In 10 years, 15. In 15 years they'll just stop pretending and enslave us all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love those patronizing letters.
Me to Senator: "I disagree with X because it hurts Y and Z."
Response: "I agree that X is a necessary and prudent development to prevent Y and Z from occurring. Thank you for your support."
Re: (Score:2)
Wanted: More sarcastic Amazon reviews of 1984...