Obama Releases National Strategy For Information Sharing 83
wiredmikey writes "President Obama on Wednesday released a national strategy designed to balance the sharing of information with those who need it to keep the country safe, while protecting the same data from those who would use it to cause harm. 'The National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding' outlines how the government will attempt to responsibly share and protect data that enhances national security and protects the American people. The national strategy will define how the federal government and its assorted departments and agencies share their data. Agencies can also share services and work towards data and network interoperability to be more efficient, the President said. The President aimed to address concerns over Privacy by noting, 'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.' The full document is available here in PDF format from the White House website."
Finally Government Transparency (Score:5, Funny)
The National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding' outlines how the government will attempt to responsibly share and protect data that enhances national security and protects the American people...The President aimed to address concerns over Privacy by noting, 'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be â" and will be â" protected.'
Great. That means we will never need to use Wikileaks again because the government will from now on share information with its people, and protect human rights.
This is a great sigh of relief to people like Julian Assange, Private Bradley Manning and those who respect their leadership and courage to share information about what their government is up to. Finally we get transparency in government while at the same time the average citizen will be free from unwarranted and ubiquitous surveillance.
This almost seems to good to be true. It almost seems as if I'm dreaming. It doesn't seem real: A government we can trust.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wait, what? Just because the government has a strategy for sharing information, doesn't mean it will. I wouldn't expect any change in transparency if I were you. In contrast, the first thing I see happening with this is that any cock-ups will be considered and labeled "harmful for public release" and sites like Wikileaks being more necessary than ever. Remember, rules will be abused by people when possible. Last time I checked, It's still people you're talking about here.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you posted as an AC, but: Whooooooooosh!
Re:Finally Government Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a great sigh of relief to people like Julian Assange, Private Bradley Manning and those who respect their leadership and courage to share information about what their government is up to.
Ah, yes, I am sure there are directives in there about no longer hounding Assange, no longer blocking Wikileaks donations and letting Manning off for the inhumane treatment he suffered. No?
This wouldn't be coming from the same President Obama who publicly declared Manning to be guilty long before any trial [cbsnews.com]?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes it is that same Obama. He is a slippery double talking sack of shit, and nobody should forget that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Racist!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Racist!
Awesome. So anyone criticizing Obama is racist, simply because Obama is black?
Troll he may be, but the OP has made no reference to race or any stereotypes. Where are you coming from with this?
Re: (Score:1)
Did you hear the whooshing sound?
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone criticizing Obama is racist, simply because Obama is black?
Personally, I have never understood why Obama is considered black. His father was black, and his mother was white. So that surely makes him just as white as it makes him black?
If anything, the racist part is considering him black. The "one drop" rule deserves to be buried in history, where it belongs. If we Americans can't even move away from that, we are truly subhuman.
Re: (Score:3)
So anyone criticizing Obama is racist, simply because Obama is black?
Personally, I have never understood why Obama is considered black. His father was black, and his mother was white. So that surely makes him just as white as it makes him black?
If anything, the racist part is considering him black. The "one drop" rule deserves to be buried in history, where it belongs. If we Americans can't even move away from that, we are truly subhuman.
Wow another intelligent person on Slashdot. We wll never destroy the heart of racism as long as USAians consider themselves as Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Native Americans. None of us our pure Americans, there is no such race. We really are the melting pot.
There is nothing wrong with keeping alive traditions from your home country, but just admit you are an American, and stop using "racist" terms to describe how you're different.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I have never understood why Obama is considered black. His father was black, and his mother was white. So that surely makes him just as white as it makes him black?
I believe it's called the "paper bag test."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is that same Obama. He is a slippery double talking sack of shit, and nobody should forget that.
What a long-winded way to say "politician".
He won because he wasn't Bush. Then he showed the world that he was Bush. But the alternatives either are Bush too, or they are populist nutjobs. Good ones that are willing to cooperate for the good of everyone, and are willing to change positions based on new evidence are few and far between. We The People don't want them. We want babykissers who will stand on principles in face of evidence, show the world who's the boss (by bombing their civilians from safe
Re: (Score:2)
show the world who's the boss (by bombing their civilians from safe distance)
How the fuck else do you bomb someone?
Well, not bombing civilians is rather popular among other Western countries.
I would claim that a nation that puts the value of a soldier's life above the value of a civilian has lost all moral high ground they may have had.
Or are you one of those "radical Muslims"?
There is nothing radical about any of the Abrahamic religions. Justifying atrocities with fairy tales is old school, and just as reprehensible now as it was before. Whether you say "Allah akbar" or "one nation under god" you're still just regurgitating old crap. A little radical freeth
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes it is that same XXXXX. He is a slippery double talking sack of shit, and nobody should forget that."
Replace XXXXX with the name of Any president we have had.
Actually replace XXXXX with the name of any House of Represenatitive member or senator. Or State Governor, etc...
Every politician is that, you should never ever forget the fact that if they are elected then they are lying to you when their lips are moving.
Re: (Score:3)
B-- but he got a Nobel Prize for his achievements. (Said achievements being that the Europeans all love him, of course.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Finally we get transparency in government while at the same time the average citizen will be free from unwarranted and ubiquitous surveillance.
Any other president, including Bush, could take lessons from Obama on how to eradicate all remaining government transparency (by hunting down every whistleblower that dares to make a peep). So forgive me if I am not optimistic.
This almost seems to good to be true. It almost seems as if I'm dreaming. It doesn't seem real: A government we can trust.
If it is too good to be true - it is.
But please tell me you are joking. Why is your post rated Insightful? Moderators?
Re:Finally Government Transparency (Score:4, Informative)
Re: "keep the country safe"
The people we most need to keep the country safe from are the ones setting these policies. I hope they have OUR best interests at heart.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news ... the CIA has been renamed "The Ministry for Information Sharing." This is a double-plus good change.
Surely it's a part of recdep, which in turn is part of minitrue. And what is this unword "change"?
I Don't Believe Him (Score:2, Insightful)
I call shenanigans. This is just their attempt at making us feel better so that we'll (resist less when we) "share" more data with them.
This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.
The US government does what it wants, when it wants. They "share" information by not protecting or encrypting data (ooooh, a laptop!) or by squeezing it out of foreign countries, and many other ways. They want every ISP to keep perpetual records on any and all web activity, cell providers to hand out live and historical GPS info, blah blah blah.
For those on their "If you're
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "lip service". Obama was pro-wiretap in the Senate, and has done nothing that indicates he has changed his position on increased government surveillance. What worries me is SAR "Suspicious Activity Reporting". Can you imagine what your life will be like once some unknown person has gotten a report into this database on you? Do you think there will be any mechanism for ever removing it?
Re: (Score:3)
The US government does what it wants, when it wants. They "share" information by not protecting or encrypting data (ooooh, a laptop!) or by squeezing it out of foreign countries, and many other ways. They want every ISP to keep perpetual records on any and all web activity, cell providers to hand out live and historical GPS info, blah blah blah.
They "share" the same way my dog wants to share. I.e. she gets my steak, and I stay the fuck away from her food bowl.
This is bad in many ways, but most of all because it allows the government to "protect" (i.e. hide) data that earlier was available to the public under FOIA. It will broaden their mandate to collect data and not share, nor even give insight.
Re: (Score:2)
They "share" the same way my dog wants to share. I.e. she gets my steak, and I stay the fuck away from her food bowl.
That's not the dog's fault, it's yours for not showing her who's boss, you need to fix that shit now! - Hint: That's also an on-topic metaphor.
What's the news? (Score:2)
A center for information sharing? Sweden has had this for a long, long time!
Oh damn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a very large DoD organization. Your comment would be funny if it weren't true. "Wiki? What's a Wiki? That's that thing that people leak stuff with, right?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.
Not to mention personally signing off on people who were put on a "kill list". It is so very surreal, what goes on nowdays.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, dude, Judicial process is not the same as due process... right? right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.
Not to mention personally signing off on people who were put on a "kill list". It is so very surreal, what goes on nowdays.
Isn't it what Nobel Peace Prize winners do?
I have to admit. He is a great politician. (Score:1)
Almost as good as Slick Willie.
Re: (Score:3)
It helps to have 51% of an electorate that is dumber than a box of rocks.
That's no hard feat in a country where at least 91% of the electorate qualify for that description. Educated voters are few and far between. Ask the average voter what he thinks about Keynes or parliamentarism, and you'll be met with a blank stare at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because you need to be equipped with a college education to be swayed by facts instead of charisma and bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant 90%
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ironic, aint it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act -- the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to spy on Americans speaking to people abroad without a warrant. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.
Why would they debate it? Both sides agree on every single military/security-related issue at this point.
The presidential debates were so interesting, with Obama and Romney competing to see who likes military drones more or who will promise to bomb more countries (Romney wins on that one, but not by much).
Re:Ironic, aint it? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is Obama's true genius he knows how to use new speak, better than anyone. He talks peace, but if anything is quicker to use a "kinetic military action" than even GWB was and does it with less congressional oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Information sharing, government version (Score:4, Funny)
Likely to do as well as Bush's EO (Score:1)
What's crucial to understand about large bureaucracies is that they are not incentivized to share information, rather, to talk about the sharing of information as it had occurred.
Fortunately, as soon as he's got Gun Control sorted, Joe Biden can set about fixing this. Because nobody does it better than Uncle Choo-Choo.
There Is No Real Privacy Anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
If information can be gathered, it will be. If laws are passed to restrict access to it, people will find ways around the laws and/or just plain break the law when they want to. This is true in both the public and private sectors.
Whether it's websites that find new ways to track everywhere you browse, or government boffins who want to know what you eat for breakfast and how often you have sex, they ARE going to get that information. The technology exists now to do it, so they WILL do it.
What should TERRIFY all of us -- without exception -- is the way this is being handled, both in the private and public sectors: "we will gather the info, but we promise not to abuse it and we will restrict access to it."
Folks, that ain't gonna happen. People are people. Crooks are crooks and curiosity kills every time.
Perfect example and please don't take this the wrong way. I'm NOT trying to restart the old debate about healthcare in the US. But I have to admit that it has puzzled me that some of the same people who scream about businesses tracking everything we do, don't say a word about the FACT that the Affordable Health Care Act creates one of the largest, most invasive and complete databases of health information that has ever existed.
And our protection? The same thing you see here. "We promise not to abuse this goldmine of information in any way. We're the government and we're here to help. Trust us."
Do you REALLY believe that, in a tight election, juicy tidbits aren't going to magically "slip" out about some challenger's medical history?
I don't know what the answer is. But if you begin to understand that there is no real expectation of privacy anymore, you're at least headed in the right direction.
Double-Plus Good, Comrade! (Score:5, Interesting)
'This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be â" and will be â" protected.'
I mean, really...can this statement possibly be any more Orwellian?
They've got to realize how totally full of shit that statement sounds, even to someone with no dog in the fight. I refuse to believe they are so clueless as to believe that statement does anything but incite and fan the flames of distrust and hostility.
It's like they're trying to get people to start a rebellion, so they'll have an excuse to declare martial law and roll the Hellfire-equipped drones, checkpoints, and armor out on the general population.
It would certainly be ironic if US citizens end up being saved from tyranny not by elections, rebellion, or the judicial system, but by Iran or N. Korea nuking Washington, D.C. either by ICBM or by a smuggled-in device.
Personally, if I were a D.C. resident and accidentally learned of such a plot, either to nuke D.C. and/or to assassinate top government leaders, I'd quietly leave town and keep my mouth shut. And that really hurts me to have to say about my own nation's government and it's leaders. But sadly, it and they have become everything that the US has fought politically and waged wars against for over 100 years.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
U mad Congressman?
Strat
The National Strategy for Information Sharing....? (Score:3)
Change.org for information (Score:2)
An easy, convenient, public and accountable way to ask for info and get a nicely worded "fuck off" in response every time.
Obama's has been at least as bad on transparency as Dubya since his first presidential campaign ended. I think he was the less-bad choice of the Big Two candidates over the last couple of elections but I don't have the wool over my eyes.
Same as the old boss (Score:3)
This strategy makes it clear that the individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected.
Why don't I believe you? Oh, that's right, because you've expanded the power of the police state just as much as any executive before you.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
On the standard political flip flop... (Score:2)
... what does this really mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. A politicians words are usually meaningless. Look at his actions.
Little Glimpses of Reality (Score:3)
Obviously this is a public relations piece, and has been meticulous scrubbed to minimize the risk of losing votes through accidental candor. Still, if you look carefully, you can catch glimpses of the mindset in the way things are phrased and structured.
From page 14, here are the top five priority objectives:
Priority Objectives
Top Five
The following objectives capture the highest five priorities of the Administration in achieving the infor-mation sharing and safeguarding goals of this Strategy.
1. Align information sharing and safeguarding governance to foster better decisionmaking, performance, accountability, and implementation of the Strategy's goals.
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
3. Adopt metadata standards to facilitate federated discovery, access, correlation, and monitoring across Federal networks and security domains.
4. Extend and implement the FICAM Roadmap across all security domains.
5. Implement removable media policies, processes and controls; provide timely audit capabilities of assets, vulnerabilities, and threats; establish programs, processes and techniques to deter, detect and disrupt insider threats; and share the management of risks, to enhance unclassified and classified information safeguarding efforts.
Notice anything different in the structure of the items? Here, I'll point out the one that is different:
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
See it yet? OK, I'll bold the section that makes this item uniquely structured:
2. Develop guidelines for information sharing and safeguarding agreements to address common requirements, including privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, while still allowing flexibility to meet mission needs.
Nice -- it's the only one that says, Except when it would interfere with the mission. Isn't it fascinating that every other one of the top five points is just stated, but with civil liberties, privacy, and civil rights, they feel both compelled and uninhibited in adding, Except when it would interfere with the mission. They couldn't make it through one simple declaration that sometimes the rights of the citizens enumerated in The Constitution preempt the authority of government without adding, We don't really mean this one.
similar to monopoly on violence (Score:1)
It strikes me now, perhaps due to recent events, that there is perhaps less philosophical difference between 'information' and 'arms' in today's world than many would allow. Just as weaponry can be used to liberate or oppress, so too can information. No matter how you look at it, we, as a society, have granted the government a 'monopoly on violence'. In the interest of pursuing the greater good, we grant the Government our trust, such that it alone is able to use violence, and we take that right (if one
FTFY (Score:2)
President Obama on Wednesday released a national strategy designed to balance the sharing of information with those who need it to keep their asses covered, while protecting the same data from those who should rightfully own it.
sharing? (Score:2)