
Obama Administration Set to Expand Sharing of Data That N.S.A. Intercepts - ddlatham
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administration-set-to-expand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html
======
toufka
As Snowden stated, the data on nearly everyone alive's habits is kept 'safe
and secret' by policy alone, and not by any technical or legal controls. There
are few if any technical or legal limits to what the United States government
collects about not only the world, but also its citizens. As policy changes,
from period to period or president to president, the data too will be subject
to ever-changing political controls. If no technical or legal safeguards are
installed, then at some inevitable point along that pendulum swing, those in
charge of keeping that data 'safe and secret' will not have your best
interests in mind and will use it to harm your interests in pursuit of their
own: "Turnkey tyranny."

~~~
Laaw
This just isn't true. You can't, on one hand, claim the NSA has everyone's
data, and on the other hand claim Apple has a legitimate case against the FBI
-- if the NSA had that data, they'd share it with the FBI, and Apple would be
tilting at windmills.

Edit: A lot of speculation and guesses in the replies here. If anyone's got
actual evidence that the NSA "has data on everyone" or "wouldn't share their
intel with the FBI", please post it. Otherwise, why make the claim?

If you all _really_ think the NSA can simply magic their way into an encrypted
system, then why even bother? You're flying in the face of _every_ security
expert's opinion on the matter. No one with expertise in this area is going to
agree that the NSA has data collection ongoing for every person in the US,
that's patently absurd. The Snowden leaks showed us what they're capable of,
and while it was substantial, it wasn't universal. Not by a long shot, and
especially not after so many fixes were made as a result of those leaks.

~~~
toufka
>if the NSA had that data, they'd share it with the FBI

No they would not. Different government agencies are tasked with different
resources, different objectives, and different guiding laws. What is legal for
some agencies is blatantly illegal for others. The NSA has no domestic mission
and cannot generally operate on American soil - true of the entire US military
[1]. This blurring of those lines is exactly the problem. By permitting the
FBI to take on NSA-like capabilities, and giving the NSA FBI-like
responsibilities one gives the military a role in monitoring its own citizens,
and an adversarial law enforcement agency unlimited espionage powers - very
dangerous precedents - digital or otherwise.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

~~~
thejefflarson
The FBI most definitely has access to intelligence databases and information:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwi...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwind-
ig-report.html#document/p608)

A key part of the FBI's mission is "to protect and defend the United States
against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats" after all:

[https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs)

~~~
mattlutze
NSA is an agency of the Department of Defense. CIA is an independent
organization. FBI is counted among the set of US "Intelligence" organizations,
but if there's one thing media and memoirs tell us, it's that organization in
different Departments have a history of not playing nice. Case in point, all
the finger pointing around organizations not sharing information pre 9/11.

DOD and DOJ in particular I don't think have such a close buddy-buddy
relationship.

~~~
thejefflarson
Information sharing greatly increased post 9/11\. See my reply to the sibling
comment.

------
rl3
> _They said the government should disclose how much American content the
> N.S.A. collects incidentally ..._

The NSA's lawyers have twisted the definition of "collection" to mean the
accessing of information already present in storage. By any reasonable
definition of the word, they already collect virtually everything they can on
Americans. Not just metadata, but full content—everything.

Asking the NSA to disclose incidental collection on Americans would only
reveal incidental _access_ to Americans' information in context of foreign-
targeted operations.

------
edc117
Isn't anyone else furious about this? The entire system was built in secret
and without the consent of the American people, at huge expense, with little-
to-no oversight (secret courts), and now is being expanded to share our data
among every 'security' agency in the nation (again without our consent)?

It still blows my mind we've spend such huge sums of money on what is
effectively a very iffy interpretation of the law, designed to violate civil
rights on a mass scale. The other top story in the news is how another
security agency is essentially trying to get easy access to people's private
data (phones) whenever needed.

~~~
CWuestefeld
You forgot to mention that there's absolutely no evidence that any of these
sacrifices have paid off even one iota.

------
studentrob
That's their prerogative.

The public, though, is largely against these mass surveillance programs, and
should be informed from the horse's mouth exactly what they are.

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden said last year that he was glad to see that
as a result of the Snowden leaks the NSA only lost ease of access to their
small 215 program, and didn't even lose the program entirely [1]

Mass surveillance and our right to privacy need to become _election issues_ if
any of this is ever to change.

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2015/06/17/hayden-mocks-extent-
post...](https://theintercept.com/2015/06/17/hayden-mocks-extent-post-snowden-
surveillance-reform-2-years-cool/)

~~~
FreedomToCreate
Even if it does become an election issues, we know the Dems are for it and
from tonights Republican debate and their stance on Apple, I'm pretty sure its
safe to say they also support the NSA surveillance initiatives. Anything
justified as "protection from terrorists" will be supported by the government
and sadly by most US citizens.

~~~
mtbcoder
> from tonights Republican debate and their stance on Apple, I'm pretty sure
> its safe to say they also support the NSA surveillance initiatives. Anything
> justified as "protection from terrorists" will be supported by the
> government and sadly by most US citizens.

Was there any doubt? One of the core pillars of the Republican party is
massive defense spending while the party's opinion on Snowden is not exactly
favorable (to say the least). Furthermore, a current Rubio ad is literally
claiming we will enter into the Apocalypse (due to terrorism and economic
collapse) if he isn't elected as the GOP nominee.

------
ekianjo
> The idea is to let more experts across American intelligence gain direct
> access to unprocessed information, increasing the chances that they will
> recognize any possible nuggets of value

And in reality, increasing the very real possibility of a police-state at
unprecedented levels.

> “Before we allow them to spread that information further in the government,
> we need to have a serious conversation about how to protect Americans’
> information,” said Alexander Abdo, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer.

And as a non-American, this kind of things makes me want to scream. Why aren't
we talking about human rights instead of just Americans' rights. It sounds
like something out of "Animal Farm", i.e. everyone is equal in principle but
Americans are "more equal" than the others.

~~~
icelancer
Because the ACLU stands for "AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union?" They are
campaigning for their userbase, which is already an unpopular stance in the
media today given that these programs get pushed through anyway.

~~~
Ensorceled
The point still stands. The vast majority of this discussion is in the context
of "should the NSA be able to do this to Americans" as opposed to "should the
NSA be able to do this at all".

~~~
fit2rule
Americans don't like to admit that the heinous policies of their government
effect people around the world .. this would require that culturally they
accept responsibility for the actions of their government, which is not
something you can get an average American to do, easily, alas. It takes some
shock to get an average American to _actually do something_. Alas, this shock
is too often expressed as terrorism.

------
notthegov
How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-
Americans those same innate rights?

It is a crime what the NSA is doing. Against Americans, the world and the
first principles of governance (i.e. classical liberalism).

If Jefferson's notion of an Empire of Library was alive and vibrant today, the
target would not be Canada but the United States government.

Jefferson on defending the concept of popular sovereignty etc all over the
world-

"...we should then have only to include the North [Canada] in our
confederacy...and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never
surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before
so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government." \-
Jefferson to James Madison, 27 April 1809

"where this progress will stop no-one can say. Barbarism has, in the meantime,
been receding before the steady step of amelioration; and will in time, I
trust, disappear from the earth" \- Jefferson to William Ludlow, 6 September
1824

~~~
x5n1
The leadership does not believe in the Founding Fathers or the Constitution in
the way Americans would like. At best they see it as a set of rules made by
people just like themselves that they can adjust and change to meet the needs
of the times. And that usually entails more control over the ever out of
control masses, according to their perceptions.

The NSA or analogue in the late 1700s in the time of the Founding Fathers
would probably lead to a revolution. The NSA of today is common news and no
one cares that someone is always listening, not might be but is (it's being
recorded somewhere), to everything they type or do and might share that with
people who are literally out to get you if it's convenient to do so.

Ultimately this is to create a further atmosphere of fear, anxiety, and
paranoia about anything you might do or say that could come back to haunt you
later... to protect the government's fear, anxiety, and paranoia that the
citizens are always doing something wrong and need to be found out.

Nefarious plans are always being hatched that can be prevented if the right
agency just knew what everyone was doing at all times. And the specter of the
panopticon keeps everyone from even contemplating doing anything wrong.

And maybe they are not wrong. But I hate living in a paranoid world like that,
which can make people mentally ill if they think about it too much. The scene
from the Simpson where Bart is on Focusyn comes to mind.

~~~
arandolpha
Playing on the population's fear of terrorism is just a tool used to
consolidate power. The will to power of the government is not evil, but it
must be constrained by an educated population.

The intent of the 4th amendment was to guarantee privacy in our personal
lives. This protection has obviously been eroded as the the information of our
lives has become digitally interconnected.

I think the real question is what do we do from here?

The same technology that binds us together could be used to create a true
democratic system. It's time for us to evolve past the American democratic
process, which was designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."

------
jackcosgrove
This is all about bringing allies on side to the global spying cause, and
addicting them to the information it provides so the USA isn't alone in the
extent of its intrusive activities.

------
someguydave
There is a legitimate place for foreign intelligence collection. It's a pity
that the US Government doesn't use the newfound (and unwanted) publicity of
its SIGINT program to gain the public's trust through straightforward
explanation rather than continue to maintain the facade of confidentiality
through the usual rumors and press leaks.

------
ipsin
What are the names of the "other American intelligence agencies" involved? The
CIA is mentioned, but I can't tell if it's already included or not, given the
examples in the article.

Is the Drug Enforcement Agency one of them?

~~~
adventured
I think it's extremely likely the DEA, IRS, CIA, FBI, DHS, and a few other
huge agencies will see either expanded data access or get access for the first
time. The Feds are nothing if not very predictable.

------
chatmasta
Privacy advocacy has not gained traction as a mainstream issue because its
proponents continue to cite potential government overreach as the primary risk
factor in a world of diminishing privacy. As a result, even though many people
are convinced of the moral arguments against dragnet surveillance, they
disregard it as an issue, because "government overreach" seems like a small
risk factor. In other words, people hear "big brother is watching you" and
think "sure, but he's not going to do anything to me."

Nobody _actually thinks_ the US government will suddenly implement martial
law, extrajudicial detention, or unsanctioned executions. Nobody _actually
thinks_ the US is on the verge of collapsing into totalitarianism. So why
would anyone _actually care_ about the privacy debate?

The privacy debate promulgates fear of government overreach, and as a result
tends to attract isolated clusters of libertarian idealogues rather than a
grassroots distribution of everyday citizens.

To achieve mainstream viability, the privacy debate needs to shift direction
to focus on more realistic risks of constant monitoring of metadata on the
habits of citizens.

Do you know who's far more interested in your metadata than the government?:
Private organizations that derive profit from actuarial models where you are a
datapoint and a confidence interval. Who's going to have a better actuarial
model: a century-old health insurance company that has access to your most
basic metadata, or a modern insurance company with access to realtime
intelligence on your consumption and fitness habits?

Insurance companies stand to benefit the most from collecting metadata paired
with unique identifiers. The more accurate models an insurance company can
develop, the more profit it can make as it hedges against its risk with
greater certainty.

Of course, this isn't necessarily bad for the consumer. Imagine a healthy 22
year old who wears a Fitbit, connects with his college educated social network
on Facebook, and pays only with Google wallet. As a 22 year old, he should be
in one of the lowest risk categories for health insurance. But the health
insurance company, without access to metadata, does not know for sure how
healthy his habits are. But if he's healthy anyway, why shouldn't he opt into
sharing his metadata with the insurance company? If he needs to surrender a
little privacy to prove he's a healthy 22 year old, but he saves 15% on his
insurance because of it, isn't that a worthwhile tradeoff?

Recent attempts at insurance startups are already doing this. In NYC for
example, Oscar discounts your health insurance if you share your fitness
tracker data with them. Who wouldn't take that deal?

But if you opt in once, what happens as you age? Will your insurance company
increase your rates if you refuse to continue sharing metadata? Will such
refusal, a desire to hide metadata previously shared freely, act as evidence
in itself of poor health?

There are many questions to be asked and answered around the privacy debate,
including what exactly _is_ the privacy debate? What is its cause? What will
get people to rally behind that cause?

Clearly, it's not fear of the government. So maybe it's time to try inducing
fear of higher bills.

~~~
nitrogen
_Clearly, it 's not fear of the government. So maybe it's time to try inducing
fear of higher bills._

The problem with this approach is people honestly (but mistakenly) think that
even these things only happen to "other people."

------
whoisthemachine
So the NSA is going to give up one of its true roles, signal intelligence
(which I presume includes analysis and filtering)? It's just going to be a
router of that information?

~~~
mtgx
They finally realized that they collect so much of it, even they don't know
what to do with it and how to extract valuable data from it. But they came to
the wrong conclusion: giving the data to even more agencies, when they should
reduce the collection of the data to more targeted investigations.

------
Argentum01
What could go wrong?

------
USANEEDSHELP
After they share the data within, they will begin to sell the data to private
corporations, or offer the data to them for next to nothing & as long as they
share the output of their processing results. The Public - Private partnership
will be in full swing in a few years.

Why are we analyzing this? Why aren't we telling our representatives that this
is wrong & it must stop?

peace

~~~
pekk
Private corporations already have the data. Did you see the list of companies
supporting Apple?

Nobody is worried about this. We think that companies have the right to keep
dossiers on people, as long as they make a scout's promise that it's only for
advertising. And selling to each other. But don't give data to the government,
that would be unethical.

~~~
Gibbon1
More think of you're bidding on a contract with General Electric and the guy
across the table has been listening in on all of your conference calls and
reading all of your confidential documents courtesy of your competitors mole
at the FBI. And so he knows what your go no go point is to the penny.

------
glasz
that idiot definitely had a private screening of the zapruder film. i mean,
come on. what a beautiful shill he is.

------
thrillgore
I still cannot believe the free world gave the head of this Administration a
Nobel Peace Prize.

