8 ms·

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see this was stopped, but how long until the DEA is simply drinking from the same firehose the NSA is? We've already heard all

by edc117 11y ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see this was stopped, but how long until the DEA is simply drinking from the same firehose the NSA is? We've already heard all about parallel construction, and now there's talk about sharing the information the NSA sucks up. Why isn't any of this going through Congress or being given proper oversight?

fweespeech 11y ago
If it went through Congress, the politicians couldn't be caught supporting it. They want plausible deniability. If it works, Congress can claim they reduced crime. If it fails, they can blame the President failing to properly oversee his people. They have literally no incentive to get involved.
italophil 11y ago
Not very long before they get NSA data, Obama just took the first step: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administration-set-to-expand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administ...
- awqrre 11y ago
  Obama really fooled me with his "nice" speeches at election time...
  - thephyber 11y ago
    Do you have any proof he had decided to take this course of action before he took office when he was making campaign promises? I'm under the impression that the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies are extremely good at drumming up scary daily reports which wear down any president's resolve.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      >Do you have any proof he had decided to take this course of action before he took office when he was making campaign promises? Does it really matter when he decided to take this course of action? I think what matters is that he did. >I'm under the impression that the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies are extremely good at drumming up scary daily reports which wear down any president's resolve. That's no excuse, it doesn't justify his actions. Obama was selected from a country of 300 million people to lead the nation, it's perfectly justifiable to expect for him to be above being manipulated by "scary daily reports". And here he is, step by step turning the US into an Orwellian police state (God, I wish this was hyperbole). Also, I seriously doubt the NSA has been bugging Obama for permission to hand over their data to various LE agencies.
      - ssmoot 11y ago
        > Does it really matter when he decided to take this course of action? I think what matters is that he did. I would hope a President (or any politician really) would feel free to change their mind as they're presented with evidence they weren't previously familiar with. Or maybe their own priorities have even changed 8 years later and that's influenced their change of heart. That sort of thing happens. Just because I might disagree with their conclusion or interpretation doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to reevaluate. One of the most hollow, worthless political insults is to call someone a "flip flopper" IMO. It panders to ignorance. I want politicians to be persuaded by the facts. To not be zealous idealogues.
        awqrre 11y ago
        Then I guess that every election promise that he choose not to keep should be brought back to a popular vote/referendum ... that would help people not feel betrayed. It's not like he has to promise anything...
        ssmoot 11y ago
        You're voting for a leader. Not a checklist. CA politics seems to have trouble with referendums. I want the President to feel like they have a duty to make unpopular decisions sometimes.
    - Godel_unicode 11y ago
      I think this is an interesting question: is it worse for him to have made promises he never intended to keep, or for him to have gone back on his promises after he was elected? I think that the former would probably be a worse indictment of his character, but at the end of the day the result is the same from the outside.
      - meric 11y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if he was blackmailed by the NSA. It's not like that's never happened before in the US.
        junto 11y ago
        Whilst many people would see your comments as tinfoil-hattery, the point is an interesting one. There is obviously no proof that the president has been blackmailed by the NSA. However it is not outside the reasons of their capabilities to have targeted and monitored him prior to him becoming president whilst he was unaware of their capabilities. The point, and this is important, is that the NSA not only has the real technical capability to fully monitor any number of up-and-coming senators, but there are no checks and balances in order for us to know that they HAVEN'T targeted and subsequently blackmailed him. Technology has made it easy to target and monitor anyone that has the possibility of making a noticeable impact on the system. The people that control the system at that point in time, are then able to embrace, extinguish or "redirect" any outside risk to their power base. Total surveillance makes this process simple. Not only can you start to weed out the bad apples, but you can also start to automate the process. Slowly you can train the system to spot the risks. He who controls the surveillance, then controls everyone else. With complete storage archives of all the data, you can also backtrack on flagged entities and see their entire history. Imagine being presented with a blackmail dossier that listed (with photographic / video evidence) your youthful escapades during your school and university years. "I did not inhale!". "Oh yes you did Mr President, and here's a HD video of it". The NSA have taken the worst that the internet had to offer and weaponised it against all citizens - both foreign and domestic.
        11y ago
    - btilly 11y ago
      In July, 2008, then Senator Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity from lawsuits for illegal wiretapping. In October, 2007 he had promised to filibuster any attempt to give telecoms retroactive immunity. So this counts in my book as his first broken campaign promise, and proof that he hoped to continue warrantless wiretapping before he became President.
      - s_q_b 11y ago
        Something about the classified reports changes people. Most of IC guys are careerists. Presidents come and go, which makes me think the DoD has a lot of practice at scaring novice presidents into accomplishing their policy goals.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      It's the man's job to run the bureaucracy, not be run by the bureaucracy. Any President who lets himself get run is not qualified to be President. (Yes, I know this means most recent Presidents and current candidates are not qualified to be President. But does that really shock you?)
- thephyber 11y ago
  This is the worst case scenario from the NSA mass-surveillance debacle. I could plausibly justify it when the NSA (a department of the DoD) was solely focused on national security (assuming the NSA's self-imposed controls, protocols, procedures, etc were implemented and executed as the NSA Director claimed). Now national security resources are being retasked to fight another failed prohibition. The US Federal Government's failed drug policies are as much a threat to US national security as foreign drug cartels are. Re-legalize narcotics, redirect enforcement and imprisonment funding to rehab, education, abd.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    The DEA's Special Operations Division already shares data with the IC for parallel construction purposes, and they have a $280,000,000 budget.
- mtgx 11y ago
  I wonder what they mean by "changing the rules". Are they talking about another Executive Order? How would they just "change the rules" without violating some law? My fear is this will be done through CISA, as I expected it would be. That would give them the excuse to say it's legal.
x5n1 11y ago
DEA needs to be dismantled. What are useless organization. They are thugs that go after the poor. Founded by Nixon to basically do just that. Some interesting facts: "The total budget of the DEA from 1972 to 2014, according to the agency website, was $50.6 billion." So in 40 years 51 billion dollars, or a billion dollars per year. "In 2005, the DEA seized a reported $1.4 billion in drug trade related assets and $477 million worth of drugs.[20] According to the White House's Office of Drug Control Policy, the total value of all of the drugs sold in the U.S. is as much as $64 billion a year" So basically they are robbing poor and not really making any dent in the drug trade.
- leeoniya 11y ago
  not to mention how much it costs to support an enormous prison population (largest in the world?) and the permanent toll it has on those with criminal records for drug offenses. do privatized for-profit prisons have a gov't lobby to help fill their cells to max capacity?
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    Yep. Probably more than one, but a quick google search yielded: http://apcto.org/ http://apcto.org/
  - niccaluim 11y ago
    largest in the world? Largest by total number by a huge margin (2.2 million, with the next largest being China with 1.7 million), but we've fallen to the #2 spot when measured per capita. Newly #1 there is Seychelles with about 700 prisoners out of a population of 90,000. Source: http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_popula...
- abecedarius 11y ago
  They're getting $2 billion/year now, according to Wikipedia. I wonder if your $50.6B is not inflation-adjusted; it struck me as surprisingly 'low'.
michaelbuckbee 11y ago
It's already happening (and has been for some time). The NSA passes information to the DEA which they then build out a separate evidentiary chain to satisfy the legal requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
arca_vorago 11y ago
I thought the Snowden do s or some other leak had already shown the NSA was sharing with DEA... I honestly think its most likely already happening.

by edc117 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

If it went through Congress, the politicians couldn't be caught supporting it. They want plausible deniability. If it works, Congress can claim they reduced crime. If it fails, they can blame the President failing to properly oversee his people. They have literally no incentive to get involved.

italophil 11y ago

Not very long before they get NSA data, Obama just took the first step: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administration-set-to-expand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administ...

awqrre 11y ago
Obama really fooled me with his "nice" speeches at election time...
- thephyber 11y ago
  Do you have any proof he had decided to take this course of action before he took office when he was making campaign promises? I'm under the impression that the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies are extremely good at drumming up scary daily reports which wear down any president's resolve.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    >Do you have any proof he had decided to take this course of action before he took office when he was making campaign promises? Does it really matter when he decided to take this course of action? I think what matters is that he did. >I'm under the impression that the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies are extremely good at drumming up scary daily reports which wear down any president's resolve. That's no excuse, it doesn't justify his actions. Obama was selected from a country of 300 million people to lead the nation, it's perfectly justifiable to expect for him to be above being manipulated by "scary daily reports". And here he is, step by step turning the US into an Orwellian police state (God, I wish this was hyperbole). Also, I seriously doubt the NSA has been bugging Obama for permission to hand over their data to various LE agencies.
    - ssmoot 11y ago
      > Does it really matter when he decided to take this course of action? I think what matters is that he did. I would hope a President (or any politician really) would feel free to change their mind as they're presented with evidence they weren't previously familiar with. Or maybe their own priorities have even changed 8 years later and that's influenced their change of heart. That sort of thing happens. Just because I might disagree with their conclusion or interpretation doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to reevaluate. One of the most hollow, worthless political insults is to call someone a "flip flopper" IMO. It panders to ignorance. I want politicians to be persuaded by the facts. To not be zealous idealogues.
      - awqrre 11y ago
        Then I guess that every election promise that he choose not to keep should be brought back to a popular vote/referendum ... that would help people not feel betrayed. It's not like he has to promise anything...
        ssmoot 11y ago
        You're voting for a leader. Not a checklist. CA politics seems to have trouble with referendums. I want the President to feel like they have a duty to make unpopular decisions sometimes.
  - Godel_unicode 11y ago
    I think this is an interesting question: is it worse for him to have made promises he never intended to keep, or for him to have gone back on his promises after he was elected? I think that the former would probably be a worse indictment of his character, but at the end of the day the result is the same from the outside.
    - meric 11y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if he was blackmailed by the NSA. It's not like that's never happened before in the US.
      - junto 11y ago
        Whilst many people would see your comments as tinfoil-hattery, the point is an interesting one. There is obviously no proof that the president has been blackmailed by the NSA. However it is not outside the reasons of their capabilities to have targeted and monitored him prior to him becoming president whilst he was unaware of their capabilities. The point, and this is important, is that the NSA not only has the real technical capability to fully monitor any number of up-and-coming senators, but there are no checks and balances in order for us to know that they HAVEN'T targeted and subsequently blackmailed him. Technology has made it easy to target and monitor anyone that has the possibility of making a noticeable impact on the system. The people that control the system at that point in time, are then able to embrace, extinguish or "redirect" any outside risk to their power base. Total surveillance makes this process simple. Not only can you start to weed out the bad apples, but you can also start to automate the process. Slowly you can train the system to spot the risks. He who controls the surveillance, then controls everyone else. With complete storage archives of all the data, you can also backtrack on flagged entities and see their entire history. Imagine being presented with a blackmail dossier that listed (with photographic / video evidence) your youthful escapades during your school and university years. "I did not inhale!". "Oh yes you did Mr President, and here's a HD video of it". The NSA have taken the worst that the internet had to offer and weaponised it against all citizens - both foreign and domestic.
        11y ago
  - btilly 11y ago
    In July, 2008, then Senator Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity from lawsuits for illegal wiretapping. In October, 2007 he had promised to filibuster any attempt to give telecoms retroactive immunity. So this counts in my book as his first broken campaign promise, and proof that he hoped to continue warrantless wiretapping before he became President.
    - s_q_b 11y ago
      Something about the classified reports changes people. Most of IC guys are careerists. Presidents come and go, which makes me think the DoD has a lot of practice at scaring novice presidents into accomplishing their policy goals.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    It's the man's job to run the bureaucracy, not be run by the bureaucracy. Any President who lets himself get run is not qualified to be President. (Yes, I know this means most recent Presidents and current candidates are not qualified to be President. But does that really shock you?)
thephyber 11y ago
This is the worst case scenario from the NSA mass-surveillance debacle. I could plausibly justify it when the NSA (a department of the DoD) was solely focused on national security (assuming the NSA's self-imposed controls, protocols, procedures, etc were implemented and executed as the NSA Director claimed). Now national security resources are being retasked to fight another failed prohibition. The US Federal Government's failed drug policies are as much a threat to US national security as foreign drug cartels are. Re-legalize narcotics, redirect enforcement and imprisonment funding to rehab, education, abd.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  The DEA's Special Operations Division already shares data with the IC for parallel construction purposes, and they have a $280,000,000 budget.
mtgx 11y ago
I wonder what they mean by "changing the rules". Are they talking about another Executive Order? How would they just "change the rules" without violating some law? My fear is this will be done through CISA, as I expected it would be. That would give them the excuse to say it's legal.

x5n1 11y ago

DEA needs to be dismantled. What are useless organization. They are thugs that go after the poor. Founded by Nixon to basically do just that. Some interesting facts: "The total budget of the DEA from 1972 to 2014, according to the agency website, was $50.6 billion." So in 40 years 51 billion dollars, or a billion dollars per year. "In 2005, the DEA seized a reported $1.4 billion in drug trade related assets and $477 million worth of drugs.[20] According to the White House's Office of Drug Control Policy, the total value of all of the drugs sold in the U.S. is as much as $64 billion a year" So basically they are robbing poor and not really making any dent in the drug trade.

leeoniya 11y ago
not to mention how much it costs to support an enormous prison population (largest in the world?) and the permanent toll it has on those with criminal records for drug offenses. do privatized for-profit prisons have a gov't lobby to help fill their cells to max capacity?
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  Yep. Probably more than one, but a quick google search yielded: http://apcto.org/ http://apcto.org/
- niccaluim 11y ago
  largest in the world? Largest by total number by a huge margin (2.2 million, with the next largest being China with 1.7 million), but we've fallen to the #2 spot when measured per capita. Newly #1 there is Seychelles with about 700 prisoners out of a population of 90,000. Source: http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_popula...
abecedarius 11y ago
They're getting $2 billion/year now, according to Wikipedia. I wonder if your $50.6B is not inflation-adjusted; it struck me as surprisingly 'low'.

michaelbuckbee 11y ago

It's already happening (and has been for some time). The NSA passes information to the DEA which they then build out a separate evidentiary chain to satisfy the legal requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

arca_vorago 11y ago

I thought the Snowden do s or some other leak had already shown the NSA was sharing with DEA... I honestly think its most likely already happening.