Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Releases National Strategy For Information Sharing

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the learning-to-share dept.

Government 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."

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally Government Transparency (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346029)

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:Finally Government Transparency (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346217)

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:Finally Government Transparency (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#42351521)

I know you posted as an AC, but: Whooooooooosh!

Re:Finally Government Transparency (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42346233)

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:Finally Government Transparency (2, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#42346325)

Yes it is that same Obama. He is a slippery double talking sack of shit, and nobody should forget that.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (3, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#42346383)

Racist!

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42346479)

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:Finally Government Transparency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346523)

Did you hear the whooshing sound?

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42346723)

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:Finally Government Transparency (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 2 years ago | (#42346961)

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:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42353783)

The problem is that some Americans have ancestries that allow them to easily acquire alternate citizenship(s). Therein lies the problem because there are certain occupations that need to be reserved for those who CANNOT run back or elsewhere. People need to be wary of those who go about overproving their loyalty (East Asians in general and Japanese in particular) because that should raise suspicions in a reasonable individual.

==//==

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42359139)

I both like and agree with your comment.

However, I do find it funny how if you say something that demeans someone of another ethnic division you can be considered recast. That is unless your demeaning a majority, i was picked on all through school and no one ever called any of those who picked on me raciest, because I am white. But the one time I fired back at one of the Hispanics who had been picking on me for years, I was suddenly labeled raciest. Somehow that doesn't seem fair, and to me outlines the problems with how the social stigmas around racism. Even now I have to not only carefully pick my words because if the wrong person takes offense to them then I will again be called raciest.

The government, and other large organizations are not helping help any. The university I attend has a page for applying for scholarships and grants. A while back I was involved in a conversation with a few other students about these scholarships and grants. It turns out that it's pretty much certain that if your ethnic background is listed as white, your page will be empty. Well they did update it recently now there are 4 scholarships and one grant I can apply to through the page. (note: most of those are there only because I am listed as an engineering major, and actually list having an engineering major as a requirement, the others are available to everyone.) However, if you ethnic background is anything else then you will find that there will be pages of grants and scholarships you can apply for. it appears that the more publicly active your ethnic background is then the more grants are available. We found out about this because one of the Hispanic engineering students explained where his education money was coming from, and even he was shocked to see the difference in the pages.
The sad thing about this is that the university has no say in what is listed there. Scholarships and grants are made available from various corporate and government sources, all the university does is list them. If you want some proof of racism, I think this is it. Because of the call against racism, racism flourishes in a different way, rather than just fading away like it should have.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (2)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#42347409)

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:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42353687)

Public Enemy, "Fear of a Black Planet"

Black man, black woman, black baby
White man, white woman, white baby
White man, black woman, black baby
Black man, white woman, black baby

Need anyone say more. Paper bags don't burn crosses.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42349311)

Crigger: Part Nigger, part Cracker. On a serious note though, I don't see how people can make racist comments about Obama. Besides smoking menthols he's whiter than I am( and I am FUCKING white...)

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42353645)

Melanin is a shield against legitimate criticism of policies as well as ultraviolet radiation. Oh, wait, Bob Marley died from what?

==//==

Re:Finally Government Transparency (2)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 2 years ago | (#42347641)

Somebody mod this up as Funny already- sheesh. He was clearly being sarcastic.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42346655)

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 distance), always side with certain factions no matter what they do, protect big business, and communicate with the spirit in the sky. The elections won't give us what we need, but what we deserve.

tl;dr: It's not just cream that floats to the top.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42349365)

show the world who's the boss (by bombing their civilians from safe distance)

How the fuck else do you bomb someone? Or are you one of those "radical Muslims"?

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42349687)

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 freethinking wouldn't be out of the way.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42346803)

"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:Finally Government Transparency (2)

Jiro (131519) | about 2 years ago | (#42347899)

B-- but he got a Nobel Prize for his achievements. (Said achievements being that the Europeans all love him, of course.)

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42349409)

He got it for being black, and elected president a great achivement for the american people (Not having a majority of extremely racist people).

Re:Finally Government Transparency (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346279)

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 (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42346401)

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:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346539)

They do not.

Watch what they do, ignore completely what they say.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/david-james/levin-legal-group-sues-epa-records-controversial-regs-delayed-until-after-election

These are self-serving tyrants, covered by a willing complicit media. Strategy blah blah blah doesn't mean a damn thing.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346599)

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.

Griefers +1. I thought being emo was out of style but what do I know?

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1)

dedmorris (1137577) | about 2 years ago | (#42346783)

In other news ... the CIA has been renamed "The Ministry for Information Sharing." This is a double-plus good change.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42346905)

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"?

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42349995)

A random person sharing music/books/films with their friends without "proper authorization"... baaaaaaad.

Governments and corporations sharing YOUR data between themselves without your "propert authorization"... goooooood.

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42347319)

in politics there's always a catch...
we'll see where this goes...

for the time being, christmas is 5 more days ahead...
check th5s one out..
Christmas Gift 2012 Ideas [christmasgift2012.me]

Re:Finally Government Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42351773)

I sincerely detect something here.

Your's truly,
Sarcasm

Does Obama know how to dance ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346045)

I don't think so ! dance [youtube.com]

I Don't Believe Him (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346051)

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 not doing anything wrong ..." soapbox just keep in mind that they will eventually get to the point that trying to protect the last semblance of privacy from the government will be classified as "doing something wrong". There's no need to keep any secrets lad, because we'll keep 'em for you. Scouts honor.

Re:I Don't Believe Him (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#42346699)

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:I Don't Believe Him (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42346773)

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:I Don't Believe Him (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42347019)

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? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42346119)

A center for information sharing? Sweden has had this for a long, long time!

Re:What's the news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346163)

A center for information sharing? Sweden has had this for a long, long time!

Not really relevant. The cultural differences between Sweden and the U.S. are huge. It becomes very obvious in discussions regarding subjects that involves "the prisoners dilemma" type of problems.

Oh damn (4, Funny)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#42346121)

They are going to use MS Sharepoint, aren't they ?

Re:Oh damn (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | about 2 years ago | (#42348497)

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?"

Bullshit. (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | about 2 years ago | (#42346131)

"individual privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of United States persons must be — and will be — protected"

Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit. (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42346267)

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:Bullshit. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 2 years ago | (#42348301)

Well, dude, Judicial process is not the same as due process... right? right?

Re:Bullshit. (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#42352079)

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?

Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346167)

,,, 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.

Good luck with that.

Lame (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346173)

Lame. Lame president. Lame administration.

I have to admit. He is a great politician. (0)

trout007 (975317) | about 2 years ago | (#42346225)

Almost as good as Slick Willie.

Re:I have to admit. He is a great politician. (-1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#42346395)

It helps to have 51% of an electorate that is dumber than a box of rocks.

Re:I have to admit. He is a great politician. (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42346839)

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:I have to admit. He is a great politician. (1)

tibman (623933) | about 2 years ago | (#42351737)

Yeah, because you need to be equipped with a college education to be swayed by facts instead of charisma and bullshit.

Re:I have to admit. He is a great politician. (1)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | about 2 years ago | (#42347035)

I think you meant 90%

Ironic, aint it? (5, Informative)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 years ago | (#42346239)

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.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/senate-wants-sneak-warrantless-spying-bill-extension-law-without-debate-lets-call [eff.org]

Re:Ironic, aint it? (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42346301)

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? (3, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#42346333)

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:Ironic, aint it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346609)

Wow, I am surprised to see such criticism of Obama here on this point. Well it is well deserved I still observe that I would expect he got on the order of 80 to 90% support from those US contributors here. A guess I admit, and I would be pleased to be wrong, but I do not believe I am.

So I ask the question, do you now regret not supporting Romney? We know Romney was no 'saviour' but the fact is he would have been a step towards constitutional protections and individual liberties while Obama clearly ignores these things with contempt and a willing complicit media. And don't even try and mention other candidates, the choice was Romney or Obama.

Obama rules as if king and doesn't give a damn about individual liberties and you people know it. Yet you voted for him like trained rats in a maze seeking a piece of government cheese. So I really can't take all your whining about abuses of power truth be told. (This comment is meant in the general and not directed at poster DarkOx specifically as I don't know you or your political leanings at all.)

Re:Ironic, aint it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42347049)

And don't even try and mention other candidates, the choice was Romney or Obama.

And this attitude is why. There were other candidates. I voted for one of them. But people have been convinced (by the two major parties) that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away". It's not.

People complain about the Democrats or Republicans, or both, but continue to vote for them. If they don't like the Republicans, they vote Democrat. But we just tried that, didn't we? Bush turned out to be terrible, so we switched teams and went Democrat. What did we get? On matters of war, government overreach, civil liberties and constant surveillance we got more of the same! If you think that empty suit Romney would have been substantially different, think again.

So tell me again what choice I have on these matters. When the Democrats and Republicans are fucking us in a bi-partisan manner we need to make a different choice. But I'm not supposed to mention that? It's a recipe for more of the same.

Re:Ironic, aint it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42347137)

You can mention it all you want but I am speaking here about reality.

Reality is only Obama and Romney had a chance to get elected, you can whine about that and complain all you want, but that is the fact.

The choice was who was *better* at being a good choice for the country, who would adhere to the constitution best.

Romney was far from perfect, in fact he would have been one of my last choices given the field.

But the choice was Romney or Obama, this is my point. Politics is a war and you must fight this war in battles, each battle will only be a partial win, some more some less. At some level you must take what you can get. I never said that Romney would be 'substantially different' did I? Obama was the worst choice. So again I say I have little patience to hear whining from you lot about abuses of power coming from the left; this is what you all voted for.

Re:Ironic, aint it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42348171)

I think you mean to say 'abuses of power coming from the right' (vs the slightly-more-right). No one left of center has held any power in the US in ages.

Does this really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346247)

The rapture is tomorrow, god will beam up the faithful.

Re:Does this really matter? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42346291)

Of course that matters, with that information sharing you won't be just a number next monday. Identifying people so easy to fool is vital for national security.

Re:Does this really matter? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#42346569)

Um, you have your end of the world prophecies mixed up. The one that happens tomorrow is based on the fact that the Mayans never got around to creating the calendar for the next long cycle. Seeing as how their civilization collapsed/got wiped out several hundred years before the end of this one, one can understand that oversight. The rapture is part of one of the end of the world traditions that include the phrase, "no man knows the day or the hour." If you are going to make fun of nutjobs, get your nutjobs straight.

Re:Does this really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346733)

Um, you have your end of the world prophecies mixed up. The one that happens tomorrow is based on the fact that the Mayans never got around to creating the calendar for the next long cycle. Seeing as how their civilization collapsed/got wiped out several hundred years before the end of this one, one can understand that oversight. The rapture is part of one of the end of the world traditions that include the phrase, "no man knows the day or the hour." If you are going to make fun of nutjobs, get your nutjobs straight.

Believe it or not there are now Christian nut jobs citing that Mayan 'prophecy' as a sign that the end of the world is coming meaning that the rapture will be tomorrow. You should know that the prophecies and other delusions of religious nut jobs mutate faster than viruses.

Re:Does this really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42353991)

Non-Abrahamic culture is cool. It's hip. It's "cultured". It's "open-minded". It's cosmopolitan. It's not bigoted like Abrahamic religion. George Harrison would have been another Richard Starkey without Hinduism. It's the same reason the Julian Huxley mentioned as to why evolution was quickly embraced. "The idea that God exists interferes with our sexual mores." Anyone who is intellectually honest knows he meant "sexual freedom". Abrahamic religion in general and eschatology in specific is called "nutjob material". However, the real offense in Abrahamic religion is the sex control . Quoting Leviticus 18:22 gets you fined in the Anglosphere outside the USA.

Fear not. Antichrist/Armilus/Ad-Dajjal will come and make war against and overcome the saints (nutjobs). You all will have your day of rejoicing. Make it count.

Information sharing, government version (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42346275)

Your information is our information, and my information is only mine, no matter where in the world you are.

Likely to do as well as Bush's EO (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42346433)

The 911 Commission [wikipedia.org] had a few bullet points about "sharing", and an executive order followed.
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. (4, Interesting)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about 2 years ago | (#42346469)

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! (4, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42346473)

'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:Double-Plus Good, Comrade! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42347773)

So you think killing all government leaders will result in the next round of leaders NOT wanting to collect and analyze any data they can get their hands on to prevent such a recurrence? People are way to pessimistic about today's governments and societies. Open a history book and follow the progress of the US since it's founding and show a time where the politicians were any better than they are today. Just look at the wealth distribution that existed in 1900. Monopolies were standard fare and makes today's income distribution look almost equal. Look at the time where there were no worker rights and workers had to accept whatever conditions just to feed their families. Look at the lack of environmental awareness and regulation. Manufactures were disposing waste products any where they wanted. Look at the racial strife in the 50's and 60's and compare it to today where the US elected a black president. Look at today's laws and regulations in the auto industry and compare the MPG and emission regulations forcing auto manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles instead of behemoths getting 5 MPG on leaded fuel. People say the US is in decline but when was it ever at the pinnacle of success and glory? Societal characteristics are for the most part cyclical in nature. Assessing the current state of things requires acknowledging the historical facts. The biggest danger to the world today is the ability to release information world wide in real time when 90% of the information shared is bullshit and can be manipulated to enforce certain viewpoints on those receiving the information. Communicating really important ideas should really require more than 140 characters to explain. How long are people really analyzing an issue every 30 seconds?

Re:Double-Plus Good, Comrade! (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42348025)

U mad Congressman?

Strat

Re:Double-Plus Good, Comrade! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42354041)

66 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. 99

That is precisely why they want the EMP effects by flashing one three hundred miles over Kansas. Nuking DC would do us a favor.

==//==

ya right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346603)

obuma lies it should read "The National Strategy for disinformation of information and control"
its like the nazi's only jewish run...and they use a black guy whose sold out to make you think its all good

You voted for the control... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42346753)

You voted for it. Welcome to the land of big government. They'll take care of you. Just hand over the keys to your life, and let them drive.

America the ________ (haha)

The National Strategy for Information Sharing....? (2)

BetterSense (1398915) | about 2 years ago | (#42347143)

Why not just call it the Ministry of Truth?

Change.org for information (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42347545)

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 (2)

davek (18465) | about 2 years ago | (#42347753)

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... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#42347831)

... what does this really mean?

Re:On the standard political flip flop... (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 2 years ago | (#42348335)

Nothing. A politicians words are usually meaningless. Look at his actions.

Little Glimpses of Reality (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#42348713)

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 (1)

zonevm (1666543) | about 2 years ago | (#42349107)

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 could call it that) away from the individual. The government can create police forces, use threats of violence to incarcerate people for violating laws, etc. Sure, there are abuses occasionally (police brutality, wrongful imprisonment) but for the most part the tradeoff is beneficial to all. Far better for the Gov't, with adequate checks and balances, to be the sole administrator of violence in society than to have a system of vigilante justice and local militias.
The key phrase there, though, is 'adequate checks and balances'.
With information, I see things in much the same way. We count on, and in fact demand that our government to protect us from threats, both internal and external. As the world becomes more interconnected, it would be foolish to think that this could be adequately done without access to privileged information. Who is taking flight lessons, and who is paying for them? Why did four moving trucks leave the church and head to the football game, 2 days after one of the church-members purchased 2 tons of ammonium nitrate? Oh, he's a farmer and he makes similar purchases annually, and today is the annual church tailgate event? Fine. Other situations one can easily imagine? Not so fine.
The point is that if one removes their tinfoil hat for a moment, one realizes that access to privileged information and a means to integrate multiple stores of data is a valid (and necessary) means for the Gov't to protect the citizenry of the country in the way that we, as a society, demand. We certainly don't want private citizens or corporations with authority to access that data, just as we don't really want armed gangs enforcing their version of justice. It is an explicit tradeoff of individual privacy and the common good.* The problem, as I see it, is that the institutions which would provide the checks and balances necessary to justify our trust in the Gov't having a monopoly on information are not nearly as mature as those that protect us from Governmental abuses of force. There are no Miranda rights, ACLU's, or hierarchical court systems by which to air grievances and have them heard in some semblance of an unbiased fashion.
That said, I do believe that a framework is possible that would provide enough transparency to enable trust, while still providing the Gov't enough capability to assist in ensuring the public safety. I don't know exactly what it would look like, but these would be some of the tenants I'd start with:
- 7 year horizon on data (i.e. no individual piece of data can be stored by the Gov't on private citizens longer than this time, and algorithms can't have access to data older than this)
- For a reasonable fee, the right of all citizens to view their own records and challenge the information contained within (kind of like credit agencies, but 'better')
- Civilian organizations charged with verifying the integrity of algorithms and data stores
- etc?

* For those who would quote Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", I offer another quote: "Fuck off". This isn't about giving up your rights. It is about entrusting the Government with a monopoly on certain types of privileged information, just as we grant them authority to establish police forces, and other executive functions. We are talking about the same Government, by the way, that you already trust with your life every time you get on an elevator without checking the inspection certificate, proceed through a green light without validating the algorithm, or drink water from a public source. To me, accessing and mining private information is something the Gov't *should* be doing. I just want to see more transparency and more impartial institutions to give us more reason to trust them with this power.

Re:similar to monopoly on violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42354189)

Had Max Weber lived long enough to see the Holocaust, he would have renounced Gevaltmonopol.

Do you have the reproductive hardware to say "Fuck Off!" to SIX MILLION?

If there is anyone to whom it should be said "Fuck Off!", it's Godwin's Law. Human nature is such that any talk about abuse of power always winds up mentioning Nazis.

FTFY (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#42352013)

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? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 2 years ago | (#42354501)

Here's my version of Obamass sharing [youtube.com] .
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>