U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years

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

[Oswald McWeany]

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".

Good.

[cpu6502]

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."

/end sarcasm

Re:I'm surprised there is a limit

[TheGratefulNet]

no one here can prove that data EVER gets destroyed.

that's all.

Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse

[cpu6502]

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:Hope and Change

[mhajicek]

You mean for yet another one that's just the same?

Re:Look at what happened in Toulouse

[interkin3tic]

Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.

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!!!"

Re:I'm surprised there is a limit

[bigstrat2003]

Or, you know. He could do his job, and crack down on the abuses regardless of what political consequences it has for him. I, for one, don't believe in giving our representatives a free pass on not doing their job just because they don't want to hurt their chances of re-election.

Re:I'm surprised there is a limit

[b4dc0d3r]

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:Hope and Change

[Xenkar]

Ron Paul

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hope and Change

[forkfail]

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

[Bob the Super Hamste]

While I agree he has his wacky side (a rather large one at that) it seems he would be much more constitutionally minded than any of the others running. The president's power is in the ability to sign or veto legislation, as commander and chief of the armed services, and who he appoints as judges. If Congressman Paul were elected as president what would be the worst that would happen. We probably wouldn't be starting any wars unless we were attacked. We would stand a better chance of bring all of our troops home. The federal government might shut down like it did in the 90s because congress can't get its shit together and produce a balanced budget because I highly doubt a President Paul would sign one that wasn't balanced. The biggest issue might be anyone who he would appoint to the US Supreme Court, and even there I think I would be willing to pick people who would support individual freedoms and liberties. Problem he comes with a lot of baggage as a large number of established Republicans would rather he didn't run as a R because they are rather embarrassed by his libertarian and dovish sides and the rest of the population is well aware of his more wacky beliefs (note there is probably a fair amount of overlap between these 2 groups). This is why he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the republican nomination let alone winning the presidency.

Re:Hope and Change

[Anonymous Coward]

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:I'm surprised there is a limit

[Chris Burke]

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!