FBI Studied How Much Drones Impact Your Privacy -- Then Marked It Secret 139
v3rgEz writes When federal agencies adopt new technology, they're required by law to do Privacy Impact Assessments, which is exactly what the FBI did regarding its secretive drone program. The PIAs are created to help the public and federal government assess what they're risking through the adoption of new technology. That part is a little trickier, since the FBI is refusing to release any of the PIA on its drone project, stating it needs to be kept, er, private to protect national security.
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US. And this from a president who promised "the most transparent administration in history".
I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this a little creepy ... the study to tell us how much they're violating our privacy and civil rights is now a secret.
Which I'm going to have to assume they're pretty much doing everything they're not supposed to.
When government will no longer tell you what they're doing, you have to assume they're doing the worst.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
No argument on how much is being held back, but maybe it just seems secretive because of how fluidly the press and people are now using the Internet as an information medium within the past 5-10 years. Classified information and state secrets that would have previously taken decades to come to light, seem to have details globally available within years or months, and basic awareness of their existence even sooner.
As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays, leading to the current administration appearing to have more of them. On the other hand, storage has increased alongside communication, so maybe more secrets are being kept (and correspondingly leaked).
Let's take a page from their book... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the contents of the report show that their drone programs impacts privacy in ways that violate the law. So their drone program needs to be stopped.
What's that, FBI? It doesn't? Well then why don't you release the report, without any omitted material or redacting.
I mean, you say the program is working within the correct boundaries. You should have nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong.
Re:Sometimes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only sometimes? And since when do average Jane and Joe Schmoe care about the constitution or fundamental liberties? Most people seem to want safety above all else, despite pretending to want freedom.
Re:Transparency (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a doubt, the governments of the past were able to keep more secrets. This is why the Arab Spring happened. Information is easily transferred and stored thanks to technology that has become mainstream in the past 5 - 10 - 15 years.
Re: Transparency (Score:2, Insightful)
(And fighting tooth and nail at every opportunity to outlaw any means the citizens have to resist.)
Re:Transparency (Score:4, Insightful)
Compare Ellsberg to Snowden. Obama is worse than Nixon.
Wait a second (Score:4, Insightful)
You should really qualify "The Press" in these types of statements. The Press could be ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and many more who today claimed an 82 year old man shot a pregnant woman as a headline, when the person was both not pregnant and also committing armed robbery for at least the 2nd time against the same 82 year old man who was beaten as well as robbed. The Press could be the same crew that edited audio to make it look like a guy on neighborhood watch simply claimed to the Police that he was following a Black guy where the full audio shows he is responding to a 9/11 operator asking what race he believes the suspect was. The same media claimed that that guy was White when he's Hispanic, and portrayed the victim in a 7 year old picture to make it appear like the guy shot a little kid instead of a 6'1" nearly legal adult. All to sway public opinion (that one was for numerous purposes). The same media that interrupted a Congresswoman discussing the NSA for "breaking news" that Justin Beiber was arrested, and ensured that a twerk skank received more air time than dialogue about numerous political issues.
The media we normally see and hear IS on the same team as the government, make no mistake.
As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays
To some extent I agree that this, but up until 20 years ago we had some real journalism. Nation wide every station lost their "investigative reporters" within the same couple years, and that was the end of any real journalism with any of the 3 letter media outlets.
With rare exceptions today, the only thing that get air time is propaganda.
Re:Transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
(And fighting tooth and nail at every opportunity to outlaw any means the citizens have to resist.)
Oddly enough, some of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment claim to do so on the principle that an armed populace can keep a government in check -- and overthrow them by force if need be -- and yet those same people seem some of the least likely candidates to criticize the government for all these bogus measures and information black-outs in the name of "national security".
This instance is particularly shocking. They are required to make privacy assessments, presumably as a remnant of more enlightened times when the government still operated on the assumption that at least *some* members of the public are well-meaning, mostly harmless citizens. Times in which the folks who wrote up this requirement didn't even think, apparently, to include a demand that the results be made public.
And now they claim that the results of that assessment must be kept secret. For your own good, honestly. Well, that fact in itself should tell you all you need to know.