5 ms·

Here’s something I don’t get: why is it an “abuse” to run the name of someone applying for a top secret clearance through the databases? It’s ok to run a schoo

Here’s something I don’t get: why is it an “abuse” to run the name of someone applying for a top secret clearance through the databases? It’s ok to run a school teacher in Bucharest, but if someone is applying to be an FBI agent - nope. This isn’t the first time the FBI has “wrongly” run the names to prospective agents and clearance holders to through this db. They’ve promised not to do it again before. But isn’t this the perfect use case for such a thing? When you apply for a security clearance, you waive certain privacy rights. That’s reasonable and part of the deal.

ghostpepper 3y ago
This seems like the least egregious use. The article also talks about 19,000 congressional campaign donors names being run, as well as everyone who was arrested during several protests/riots. Perhaps the most egregious: > And between 2016 and 2020, the FBI routinely ran names of people who appeared in police homicide reports, “including victims, next-of-kin, witnesses and suspects.”
- pyuser583 3y ago
  This time (because this sort of thing happens again and again) it’s only a small part. Last time it was all of it.
anonymousiam 3y ago
The reason it's not an abuse is that the subject candidate for the clearance has signed the SF86 form and granted the government permission to look into all aspects of their life. The abuse being discussed here has nothing to do with applicants for a TS clearance. It has to do with US citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights within the US, and not interacting with any foreign entities. The 702 rules explicitly prohibit this, but the FBI did it anyway. https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographi... From the above linked document: SECTION 702: PROTECTING U.S. PERSON INFORMATION CAN THE IC USE SECTION 702 TO COLLECT U.S. PERSON COMMUNICATIONS? • The government cannot use Section 702 to target U.S. persons or persons located in the U.S. • However, as Congress understood when it passed the statute, it is possible that a foreign person who has been targeted under Section 702 may communicate with, or discuss information concerning, a U.S. person.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  > FBI officials also ran more than 400 U.S. defense contractors and holders of security clearances through the foreign intelligence database despite no evidence they were being targeted by a foreign power.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Understood, but by holding such a clearance, you are subject to periodic re-investigation and some continuous monitoring. You most definitely give up your privacy from government snooping in order to hold a clearance. I held such a clearance for 40+ years and I also had some international encrypted tunnels that were separate from any government work. I knew that the international traffic would be routinely collected by NSA, and I used weak algorithms/passwords (vtund) just to make it easier for them. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1340/Vtun.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1340... It would not surprise me or concern me to learn that I was one of the 400.
    - pyuser583 3y ago
      It seems we are agreeing on this. It’s just the FISA court that has an issue. People with clearances consent to extreme levels of surveillance. But when this database was created, rules were set in place that protected folks, even those with clearances, from being searched for unless there was a darn good reason. Routine background checks don’t count. Of course, foreigners have no such rights. So politically, you, me, and Bruce Schneier agree OK. But that’s not what the law says. I just find it weird we are stripping foreigners of any and all protection, while Americans have so much protection even obvious use case are violations. It feels Kafkaesque. It also feels like there’s an element of “who watches the watchmen?” Not this database.
      - anonymousiam 3y ago
        I am a libertarian, and I feel as you do. If I had not given up my privacy rights so long ago, I probably would have been a privacy activist. Constitutional rights should apply to everyone in the country. Spying on overseas traffic is not ideal, but it's rooted in a "technical" interpretation of the Bill Of Rights. It's also a fact that every other government does the same (and worse).

ghostpepper 3y ago

This seems like the least egregious use. The article also talks about 19,000 congressional campaign donors names being run, as well as everyone who was arrested during several protests/riots. Perhaps the most egregious: > And between 2016 and 2020, the FBI routinely ran names of people who appeared in police homicide reports, “including victims, next-of-kin, witnesses and suspects.”

pyuser583 3y ago
This time (because this sort of thing happens again and again) it’s only a small part. Last time it was all of it.

anonymousiam 3y ago

The reason it's not an abuse is that the subject candidate for the clearance has signed the SF86 form and granted the government permission to look into all aspects of their life. The abuse being discussed here has nothing to do with applicants for a TS clearance. It has to do with US citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights within the US, and not interacting with any foreign entities. The 702 rules explicitly prohibit this, but the FBI did it anyway. https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographi... From the above linked document: SECTION 702: PROTECTING U.S. PERSON INFORMATION CAN THE IC USE SECTION 702 TO COLLECT U.S. PERSON COMMUNICATIONS? • The government cannot use Section 702 to target U.S. persons or persons located in the U.S. • However, as Congress understood when it passed the statute, it is possible that a foreign person who has been targeted under Section 702 may communicate with, or discuss information concerning, a U.S. person.

pyuser583 3y ago
> FBI officials also ran more than 400 U.S. defense contractors and holders of security clearances through the foreign intelligence database despite no evidence they were being targeted by a foreign power.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Understood, but by holding such a clearance, you are subject to periodic re-investigation and some continuous monitoring. You most definitely give up your privacy from government snooping in order to hold a clearance. I held such a clearance for 40+ years and I also had some international encrypted tunnels that were separate from any government work. I knew that the international traffic would be routinely collected by NSA, and I used weak algorithms/passwords (vtund) just to make it easier for them. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1340/Vtun.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1340... It would not surprise me or concern me to learn that I was one of the 400.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    It seems we are agreeing on this. It’s just the FISA court that has an issue. People with clearances consent to extreme levels of surveillance. But when this database was created, rules were set in place that protected folks, even those with clearances, from being searched for unless there was a darn good reason. Routine background checks don’t count. Of course, foreigners have no such rights. So politically, you, me, and Bruce Schneier agree OK. But that’s not what the law says. I just find it weird we are stripping foreigners of any and all protection, while Americans have so much protection even obvious use case are violations. It feels Kafkaesque. It also feels like there’s an element of “who watches the watchmen?” Not this database.
    - anonymousiam 3y ago
      I am a libertarian, and I feel as you do. If I had not given up my privacy rights so long ago, I probably would have been a privacy activist. Constitutional rights should apply to everyone in the country. Spying on overseas traffic is not ideal, but it's rooted in a "technical" interpretation of the Bill Of Rights. It's also a fact that every other government does the same (and worse).