10 ms·

> However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Depar

> However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security. Sweet, Thanks Obama.

jcadam 10y ago
I'm not sure I like your tone, comrade. What are you hiding?
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Not much, apparently :-) Oh, and we noticed that you got gas here, then had something to eat there, and there were only N minutes elapsed between them. Here is your speeding ticket and DMV record update notification.
  - andrei_says_ 10y ago
    Only a matter of time ;)
javiramos 10y ago
I feel like we are a living example of history repeating itself. 9/11 -> hysteria -> implement fear-driven tactics -> suppress rights -> profit. I believe Obama has a created a fantastic movement based on his image and figure - classic American self-superation story. But when you dig into the details of the Obama years you can quickly see that he has been a gigantic letdown in a lot of basic things that I feel are important to the long-term well-being of the country (e.g. privacy rights, drone foreign policy etc.). In the end, I think Obama didn't end up being too different from any other politician.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  That was, to be honest, the biggest issue I had with Hillary Clinton and why I couldn't vote for her. (FWIW, my vote for neither major party affected nobody, my state's electoral votes are locked.) She basically stated she wanted to continue Obama's legacy and... in retrospect, Obama's legacy sucks. I voted for him twice, and I almost wish I hadn't. Countries we weren't ever even at war with have children who have now grown up to fear the sound of an American drone. (As a note, I have no issue with use of drones themselves, I have issue with how we use them. Like assassinations without due process.)
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > Obama's legacy sucks. I voted for him twice, and I almost wish I hadn't. I did too, and I also almost wish I hadn't, but, TBF, it's not like the other choices were that great.
    - cma 10y ago
      Kucinich, Mike Gravel
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      The more I think about it. It's really like we don't actually have a choice at all. We just get to influence the letter next to the name when that official shows up on CSPAN. Policy never moves.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    Obama's legacy has good spots and bad spots. In the future, his drone policy is something that may be viewed as a stain on America much like America's cold war meddling in South America that caused misery and bloodshed for millions of Latin Americas. On the other hand, Bin Laden is dead, we didn't start any new wars, the US left Iraq, and several regimes changed to democracy in the Middle East without the US military getting heavily involved. Obama's Justice Department has successfully shed light on patterns of police misconduct in several major cities and has mandated reforms. Yet, Obama and the DoJ ignored a landmark report on forensic science that could've exonerated thousands of wrongfully convicted and prevented wrongful convictions in the first place. Net Neutrality won the day under Obama, yet he has done precious little to roll back pervasive surveillance and indeed has strengthened it. In the fullness of time we'll see if Obama's legacy is ultimately viewed as negative or positive. And a lot of that depends on individual perceptions and what issues are important to you. Not to mention that feelings about his legacy will depend a lot on the quality of presidents succeeding.
mikecb 10y ago
Just as a little additional perspective, the recipient agencies may still only query the raw data for foreign intelligence purposes, so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further. Additionally, there was a great interview with Susan Hennessy in the Atlantic [1], where she suggested that this policy change has been in draft for nearly a decade, and that finalizing it potentially prevents rolling back the reforms that were made post Snowden for another decade. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/?utm_source=twb https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama...
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  delete [-] "so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further." If a thing spreads it must also increase in at least some dimensions.
  - throwaway91111 10y ago
    Yea, time in this case, not power.
  - mikecb 10y ago
    Fair point, I was going for magnitude.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- revelation 10y ago
  You make it sound like this casual thing. The only reason intelligence agencies can do all this crazy illegal stuff is because their mission is foreign intelligence, and foreigners aren't covered by US law. This is the legal basis for every intelligence agency in every democratic state, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that their activities are otherwise prima facie illegal under any human rights perspective. So what happens when you stop making the distinction between intelligence agencies and general law enforcement agencies? You get the Gestapo [1], secret police. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
mtgx 10y ago
His true legacy.
sfilargi 10y ago
> if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department It's a very unfortunate argument for advocating privacy. Privacy is so much more than getting away with a crime. In fact, allowing somebody to get away with crime would be a valid argument against privacy in my books.
A_Crazy_Idea 10y ago
<i>any</i> crime? Like an analyst would know, better just send everything to be sure.
oneshoe 10y ago
This is an obviously optimistic question but, I will present it anyway. Is it possible that through expanding the, what I believe to be, unconstitutional power of surveillance that they are actually weakening it and providing an opportunity for it to be fought against by the ACLU (or other civil liberty groups)?

jcadam 10y ago

I'm not sure I like your tone, comrade. What are you hiding?

Roboprog 10y ago
Not much, apparently :-) Oh, and we noticed that you got gas here, then had something to eat there, and there were only N minutes elapsed between them. Here is your speeding ticket and DMV record update notification.
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  Only a matter of time ;)

javiramos 10y ago

I feel like we are a living example of history repeating itself. 9/11 -> hysteria -> implement fear-driven tactics -> suppress rights -> profit. I believe Obama has a created a fantastic movement based on his image and figure - classic American self-superation story. But when you dig into the details of the Obama years you can quickly see that he has been a gigantic letdown in a lot of basic things that I feel are important to the long-term well-being of the country (e.g. privacy rights, drone foreign policy etc.). In the end, I think Obama didn't end up being too different from any other politician.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
That was, to be honest, the biggest issue I had with Hillary Clinton and why I couldn't vote for her. (FWIW, my vote for neither major party affected nobody, my state's electoral votes are locked.) She basically stated she wanted to continue Obama's legacy and... in retrospect, Obama's legacy sucks. I voted for him twice, and I almost wish I hadn't. Countries we weren't ever even at war with have children who have now grown up to fear the sound of an American drone. (As a note, I have no issue with use of drones themselves, I have issue with how we use them. Like assassinations without due process.)
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > Obama's legacy sucks. I voted for him twice, and I almost wish I hadn't. I did too, and I also almost wish I hadn't, but, TBF, it's not like the other choices were that great.
  - cma 10y ago
    Kucinich, Mike Gravel
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    The more I think about it. It's really like we don't actually have a choice at all. We just get to influence the letter next to the name when that official shows up on CSPAN. Policy never moves.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  Obama's legacy has good spots and bad spots. In the future, his drone policy is something that may be viewed as a stain on America much like America's cold war meddling in South America that caused misery and bloodshed for millions of Latin Americas. On the other hand, Bin Laden is dead, we didn't start any new wars, the US left Iraq, and several regimes changed to democracy in the Middle East without the US military getting heavily involved. Obama's Justice Department has successfully shed light on patterns of police misconduct in several major cities and has mandated reforms. Yet, Obama and the DoJ ignored a landmark report on forensic science that could've exonerated thousands of wrongfully convicted and prevented wrongful convictions in the first place. Net Neutrality won the day under Obama, yet he has done precious little to roll back pervasive surveillance and indeed has strengthened it. In the fullness of time we'll see if Obama's legacy is ultimately viewed as negative or positive. And a lot of that depends on individual perceptions and what issues are important to you. Not to mention that feelings about his legacy will depend a lot on the quality of presidents succeeding.

mikecb 10y ago

Just as a little additional perspective, the recipient agencies may still only query the raw data for foreign intelligence purposes, so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further. Additionally, there was a great interview with Susan Hennessy in the Atlantic [1], where she suggested that this policy change has been in draft for nearly a decade, and that finalizing it potentially prevents rolling back the reforms that were made post Snowden for another decade. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/?utm_source=twb https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama...

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
delete [-] "so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further." If a thing spreads it must also increase in at least some dimensions.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Yea, time in this case, not power.
- mikecb 10y ago
  Fair point, I was going for magnitude.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
revelation 10y ago
You make it sound like this casual thing. The only reason intelligence agencies can do all this crazy illegal stuff is because their mission is foreign intelligence, and foreigners aren't covered by US law. This is the legal basis for every intelligence agency in every democratic state, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that their activities are otherwise prima facie illegal under any human rights perspective. So what happens when you stop making the distinction between intelligence agencies and general law enforcement agencies? You get the Gestapo [1], secret police. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

mtgx 10y ago

His true legacy.

sfilargi 10y ago

> if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department It's a very unfortunate argument for advocating privacy. Privacy is so much more than getting away with a crime. In fact, allowing somebody to get away with crime would be a valid argument against privacy in my books.

A_Crazy_Idea 10y ago

<i>any</i> crime? Like an analyst would know, better just send everything to be sure.

oneshoe 10y ago

This is an obviously optimistic question but, I will present it anyway. Is it possible that through expanding the, what I believe to be, unconstitutional power of surveillance that they are actually weakening it and providing an opportunity for it to be fought against by the ACLU (or other civil liberty groups)?