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!

FBI Studied How Much Drones Impact Your Privacy -- Then Marked It Secret

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the awfully-suggestive dept.

Government 139

v3rgEz writes When federal agencies adopt new technology, they're required by law to do Privacy Impact Assessments, which is exactly what the FBI did regarding its secretive drone program. The PIAs are created to help the public and federal government assess what they're risking through the adoption of new technology. That part is a little trickier, since the FBI is refusing to release any of the PIA on its drone project, stating it needs to be kept, er, private to protect national security.

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

Transparency (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 months ago | (#47535539)

Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US. And this from a president who promised "the most transparent administration in history".

I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.

Re:Transparency (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47535873)

I find this a little creepy ... the study to tell us how much they're violating our privacy and civil rights is now a secret.

Which I'm going to have to assume they're pretty much doing everything they're not supposed to.

When government will no longer tell you what they're doing, you have to assume they're doing the worst.

Re:Transparency (0)

msauve (701917) | about 3 months ago | (#47535917)

Government is the people. This is a matter of regaining control from the evil overlords.

Re:Transparency (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536329)

Why do you think they are rushing into an automated military?

Re: Transparency (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536357)

(And fighting tooth and nail at every opportunity to outlaw any means the citizens have to resist.)

Re: Transparency (4, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 3 months ago | (#47537103)

(And fighting tooth and nail at every opportunity to outlaw any means the citizens have to resist.)

Oddly enough, some of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment claim to do so on the principle that an armed populace can keep a government in check -- and overthrow them by force if need be -- and yet those same people seem some of the least likely candidates to criticize the government for all these bogus measures and information black-outs in the name of "national security".

This instance is particularly shocking. They are required to make privacy assessments, presumably as a remnant of more enlightened times when the government still operated on the assumption that at least *some* members of the public are well-meaning, mostly harmless citizens. Times in which the folks who wrote up this requirement didn't even think, apparently, to include a demand that the results be made public.

And now they claim that the results of that assessment must be kept secret. For your own good, honestly. Well, that fact in itself should tell you all you need to know.

Re: Transparency (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 months ago | (#47537391)

I'm not right wing, but I have to call you out on that. Most extreme right-wingers that I know - the kind that likes to talk about right to keep and bear arms as "means to fight back against a tyrannical government" - are actually pretty skeptical of PATRIOT Act, NSA surveillance, and all that stuff. Notice how a lot of recent attacks on the NSA came from Tea Party.

Re: Transparency (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 3 months ago | (#47537441)

I'm not right wing, but I have to call you out on that. Most extreme right-wingers that I know - the kind that likes to talk about right to keep and bear arms as "means to fight back against a tyrannical government" - are actually pretty skeptical of PATRIOT Act, NSA surveillance, and all that stuff. Notice how a lot of recent attacks on the NSA came from Tea Party.

Actually I haven't said anything about left- or right-wing, though I suppose that generally speaking the need for the second amendment is felt more strongly by the right-wing. And the need to rid society of all those firearms is perhaps more strongly felt by the left. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn't the Tea Party a minority amongst right-wingers? And by extension, among pro-gun activists?

From the outside, the Ds and Rs don't actually seem all that different, and it would appear that they somehow agree on precisely those issues that are unpopular with both of their supporters. E.g., PATRIOT, domestic NSA transgressions, copyright and patent legislation, and the better part of the US foreign policy come to mind.

Re: Transparency (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 months ago | (#47537445)

Tea Party is a minority among right-wingers, but it's also the one that is most strongly pro-gun, and also the one that's most consistently emphasizing the "right to armed uprising". Mainstream Republicans are rather averse to such rhetoric (the politicians are another matter when they're pandering to electorate - they know that being seen as "pro-gun" will win them some fringe votes, but won't spook the mainstream enough to cost them more, especially when the other option is a Democrat).

Re: Transparency (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47537923)

The Tea Party didn't become "skeptical of PATRIOT Act, NSA surveillance, and all that stuff" until January of 2009. For some reason, having nothing to do with the color of the skin of the guy in the White House, I'm certain.

But the timing is a little suspect, you must admit.

Maybe you can find an example of a Tea Party person showing opposition to those programs prior to 2009. I tried and I could not.

Re:Transparency (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47536687)

Vote for good overlords...

Re:Transparency (2)

JonathanR (852748) | about 3 months ago | (#47537659)

This was never the case, even when the ink on the declaration of independence was still wet.

How many of "the people" were involved in these decisions?

Re:Transparency (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47537931)

Well, you see, there's people and then there's people. Know what I mean?

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47535985)

I look at the bright side.

It's now VERY public knowledge that "For National Security" means "To Protect the Oligarchy", and the public is slowly coming to the realization of just who the oligarchy is.

When you realize 70+% of your pay goes to the government, two miraculous things happen; real technological leaps forward requiring complex thinking by multiple people become impossible because those people are not motivated, and millions of baggers, shelf-stockers, shoe salesmen and others stop working as hard.

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536595)

Explain the 70% thing

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536697)

When you are trying to spread lies, you have to make them outrageous but still believable.

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537267)

OK.
70 per cent means 70 out of 100 - so imagine your pay was $100, he's saying $70 is taken.

Perhaps it's closer to 60, but 70 is more accurate than 0 or 100. It doesn't matter though since having "the state" grow to the point where it sucks half of someones productive output is a problem. And "the state" tends to grow until it suffocates the host, so map out how that's been trending over the last century.

So look at the total of all taxes you pay, including sales and property taxes, and bear in mind that the currency you do have can be inflated away.

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537315)

It's a bit late and I've been working for myself for long enough I don't remember all the deductions, but it goes something like this:
You have an employer who wants to trade money for work from an employee. Before he can give the employee that money, he has to pay federal taxes for having the employee. Then the employer withholds (diverts) additional money for Federal, state and local taxes, which vary depending on location and other factors. Once the employee gets the remains of his check, the money needs to be spent on something. So he buys a car or a tank of gas or a candy bar. Naturally, there are overt taxes on all these things (sales tax) hidden taxes on some (look up the actual cost of a gallon of gas pre-tax) and taxes we don't really call taxes, but recurring "fees" like registration on a new car. Naturally there are additional taxes for that too. If you were to work out the effects of this compound taxation, you could easily determine that most (more than half) of your money went to taxes of some form. While a statement like "70+% of your pay goes to the government" is not necessarily factual, there may be some merit in the idea that if people really understood how much of their money was re- (or pre-) appropriated by our government they would be less enthusiastic about working hard to generate more taxable income.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536145)

GASP! Common Sense! You don't need a college degree for that! No prestige in common sense, ARRRRRRRGH!

Re:Transparency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536323)

It's no secret. By withholding this information, they are tacitly admitting that these drones greatly violate our privacy. They think they're slick censoring and classifying this stuff, but that very action speaks volumes.

Re:Transparency (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#47536715)

I honestly would expect nothing less.......if this study is worth anything, it is going to discuss classified programs in detail, and as such, falls in the category of classified.

Now, whether anything at all should be classified is another question, but if anything should, then a study that discusses in detail classified programs should also be.

Re:Transparency (4, Insightful)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 3 months ago | (#47535947)

No argument on how much is being held back, but maybe it just seems secretive because of how fluidly the press and people are now using the Internet as an information medium within the past 5-10 years. Classified information and state secrets that would have previously taken decades to come to light, seem to have details globally available within years or months, and basic awareness of their existence even sooner.

As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays, leading to the current administration appearing to have more of them. On the other hand, storage has increased alongside communication, so maybe more secrets are being kept (and correspondingly leaked).

Re:Transparency (4, Insightful)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about 3 months ago | (#47536333)

Maybe? I don't think there is any chance the government could hide something like Area 51 in 2014. Watergate would have been revealed as quickly as Bridgegate. Secretes that would have previously taken decades to get out now take hours, days and weeks. Secrets that could have been squelched just a decade ago are now easily retrievable from computer storage and backups and surveillance and the ease of communicating not just messages, but evidence such as video, audio and pictures.

Without a doubt, the governments of the past were able to keep more secrets. This is why the Arab Spring happened. Information is easily transferred and stored thanks to technology that has become mainstream in the past 5 - 10 - 15 years.

Wait a second (3, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47536703)

You should really qualify "The Press" in these types of statements. The Press could be ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and many more who today claimed an 82 year old man shot a pregnant woman as a headline, when the person was both not pregnant and also committing armed robbery for at least the 2nd time against the same 82 year old man who was beaten as well as robbed. The Press could be the same crew that edited audio to make it look like a guy on neighborhood watch simply claimed to the Police that he was following a Black guy where the full audio shows he is responding to a 9/11 operator asking what race he believes the suspect was. The same media claimed that that guy was White when he's Hispanic, and portrayed the victim in a 7 year old picture to make it appear like the guy shot a little kid instead of a 6'1" nearly legal adult. All to sway public opinion (that one was for numerous purposes). The same media that interrupted a Congresswoman discussing the NSA for "breaking news" that Justin Beiber was arrested, and ensured that a twerk skank received more air time than dialogue about numerous political issues.

The media we normally see and hear IS on the same team as the government, make no mistake.

As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays

To some extent I agree that this, but up until 20 years ago we had some real journalism. Nation wide every station lost their "investigative reporters" within the same couple years, and that was the end of any real journalism with any of the 3 letter media outlets.

With rare exceptions today, the only thing that get air time is propaganda.

Re:Wait a second (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47538001)

nearly legal adult

"Nearly legal adult"? Is that like "nearly pregnant"?

Let me suggest that if you bang a thirteen year old girl and tell the judge, "But she looked like a nearly legal adult" that you might have some explaining to do.

And if you say you were following her down an alley because she was wearing a hoodie, you might be considered sort of a creep.

Re:Transparency (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47537975)

That's an interesting question you bring up. Are there more secrets today or are we finding out about them faster?

Well, one measure is the number of work-product documents of the Executive and Congressional branches that are being classified as secret. And it appears that the number is growing unbelievably fast. In 1996, there were about 5 million documents classified by the Federal Government. By 2006, the number had jumped to about 23 million. By 2009 it had gotten to 54 million and by 2011, we were at 92 million documents classified. Remember, these aren't super-secret nuclear codes or the plans to the underground bunker under the White House. We're talking about simple work product documents. Stuff like EPA regulations. FDA regulations. The minutes from meetings discussing trade agreements. Actual laws that we're not allowed to know about, but must obey. And this is not counting the documents that were marked secret decades ago, whose classification is supposed to sunset but has been extended further into the future, protecting us from knowing what our government is doing.

No, I'm pretty sure our government has become a hell of a lot more secretive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536023)

It's not any more secretive. You are just aware of more of the things being kept secret now.

Re:Transparency (0)

hondo77 (324058) | about 3 months ago | (#47536029)

Because Romney would have been so much better, right?

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536291)

Exactly. Rmoney would have already put all of us in prison. The FEMA camps the Republicans built could handle every true liberal in this country. There's only about 100,000 of us, and Rmoney would have very easily ordered the military to put us in the FEMA camps and to shoot everyone in the head that resisted. That is the way of their kind. McCain is now talking about forcing the issue since the Republicans control the government right now. They certainly rule the FBI.

Re:Transparency (-1, Offtopic)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 months ago | (#47536377)

Troll harder buddy. Troll harder.

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536597)

Like Romney-troll harder? Like you're 1% intelligent, 99% retard?

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537373)

Whatever you say, Mormon nutjob.

Re:Transparency (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47538065)

Well, you know, maybe. Considering the nearly incoherent warlike rantings we're getting from John McCain, and the fact that his running mate was a half-bright weathergirl who might have had brain damage from sniffing too much nail polish, we probably made out OK in 2008.

But I'm not so sure any more that boring Mitt Romney would have been much worse than the guy I voted for in 2012. At least when Mitt Romney lies, he looks a little embarrassed and his throat sounds a little tight and he pulls the sides of his eyes back. The press would have caught on to those tells and torn him apart (which is good for keeping them honest). Obama lies smoother than any president I've seen since Reagan. Clinton was also a very good liar, but not in the league of Reagan or Obama.

Or maybe it's me. It's easier to miss lies when you're hearing what you want to hear. Maybe I didn't look for Obama's tells because he was saying all the things I wanted to hear. For example, look how the Tea Party is taking to Ted Cruz. Now go listen to one of his interviews without the picture. Now listen again with the video. The guy is phonier than a 6'2" hooker on Halsted St. after midnight. If Ted Cruz was an insurance salesman in Topeka trying to sell a policy, those same Tea Party types would throw his ass out in a second. Especially the women, who are better at catching out lies.

Re:Transparency (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 3 months ago | (#47536051)

I voted for him the first time but decided to go green party the second time for realizing that he pretty much changed nothing from Bush.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536093)

I only voted for him once, and now I regret it.

To be fair, I'm having issues coming up with votes I don't regret to some extent.

Re:Transparency (4, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 3 months ago | (#47536113)

> there's never been a more secretive administration in the US.

Oh, my. I don't know if you're young, or if the easy access of the modern Internet has confused you about just how _little_ information was available to the general population about government programs 30 years ago or more. Do, please, look up the history of the Pentagon Papers.

Re:Transparency (3, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 months ago | (#47536385)

Compare Ellsberg to Snowden. Obama is worse than Nixon.

Re:Transparency (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 3 months ago | (#47537603)

Compare Ellsberg to Snowden. Obama is worse than Nixon.

Nixon presided over the slaughter that was Vietnam which included the Phoenix program [wikipedia.org] of targeted killings and torture of suspected communists. Phoenix prisoners were subjected to rape, gang rape and they were murdered using some pretty bestial methods that included starvation and pounding dowels through prisoners heads. So even if you factor in drone assassinations and the torture allegation against them neither Obama nor GWB Jr can hold a candle to Nixon.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536853)

44 years old here. He's most assuredly correct. Just think about your own example. Really, really think about it.

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536115)

I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.

If you weren't an ignorant no-information voter, wouldn't have voted for Obama a first time.

Fuck your apology and fuck you. You are the problem with America, not Obama. You.

You. Are. The. Problem.

Re:Transparency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536171)

The above is a constructive declaration that the racists were right all along.

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536293)

The racists were right all along for all the wrong reasons.

Niggers for a Gay Universe!

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536133)

You think this began with THIS president? Then you're a moron who hasn't been paying actual attention, rather just politik. Dumbass.

Re:Transparency (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 3 months ago | (#47537221)

"You think this began with THIS president?"

No, but many of us were hoping it would at least be reduced by this president. I am finally getting it through my head that Romney or Obama would have both basically done the same job of letting our rights slide down the tubes. This goes for any Democrat or Republican candidate. As long as Americans are fooled into not-voting or into voting for either of the two big parties nothing will change.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536139)

Don't worry I've always wanted to live in a dystopian society ala Blade Runner. Now we just need to wait for an American and Japanese company to merge and control every ressource on the planet.

Re:Transparency (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536163)

More secretive when it comes to intelligence and national security, but pretty much everywhere else there have been huge strides in transparency. The amount of information available to the public today that wasn't when Obama was elected is staggering.

Re:Transparency (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47536233)

More secretive when it comes to intelligence and national security

Which is by far the most important, given how easily exploitable it is.

Re:Transparency (1)

Panoptes (1041206) | about 3 months ago | (#47536985)

"The amount of information available to the public today that wasn't when Obama was elected is staggering."

Never confuse quantity with quality.

Re:Transparency (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#47536241)

I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.

Wait, why exactly did you vote the second time? It's not like we didn't know he was running a secretive administration before the election (indeed, he made a vote in favor of secrecy while he was still in the senate, before getting elected the first time).

I can sort of understand saying that he was better than the alternatives and that's why you voted for him, but that's not something you would apologize for, really....

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536325)

The real problem was, if you didn't vote for Obama, you'd be voting for the sockpuppets the GOP put up against him. That's the reason they lost, and Obama won, and thank goodness. Imagine where we'd be if Palin were president.

Re:Transparency (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#47536335)

The real problem was, if you didn't vote for Obama, you'd be voting for the sockpuppets the GOP put up against him.

Are there only two parties?

Re:Transparency (3, Insightful)

Nephandus (2953269) | about 3 months ago | (#47536813)

Nope, just the one circus. The two rings are part of the same show.

Re:Transparency (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 3 months ago | (#47537325)

The real problem was, if you didn't vote for Obama, you'd be voting for the sockpuppets the GOP put up against him. That's the reason they lost, and Obama won, and thank goodness. Imagine where we'd be if Palin were president.

it would be the same. how is obama not a sockpuppet? it wouldn't make a difference if you had a bread toaster for president. otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to vote for a president.

Re:Transparency (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 months ago | (#47537535)

Imagine where we'd be if Palin were president.

Yeah, or that shining example of progressive intellectuual integrity, John Edwards.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536279)

Leaks are Obama's worst nightmare. His policies are so at odds with the image that he wants to project, it's tragic.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536309)

Damn, you should apologize! Obama was transparently terrible and representative of the status quo after the first time. My biggest political regret is believing that he could improve things and voting for him in 2008, after he had already started to show his true colors a little bit during his campaign.

Re:Transparency (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47536399)

Nope. If you did any research on him whatsoever, you would have known he was a scumbag even before his first term.

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536487)

Because after election, he found out exactly what happened to JFK. Hence, higher defense budgets, because the men behind the curtains have the power. They are pretty good at replacing presidents...

Re:Transparency (1)

real gumby (11516) | about 3 months ago | (#47536345)

Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US. And this from a president who promised "the most transparent administration in history".

When they said “most transparent” they were apparently talking about magnitude, not sign.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536523)

Haha, it's a math joke! Absolute value! So funny!

Re: Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536663)

Don't be so obtuse

Re:Transparency (1)

msk (6205) | about 3 months ago | (#47536575)

I voted for Kodos.

Re:Transparency (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 3 months ago | (#47536833)

I voted for Kodos.

I voted for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil?

Re:Transparency (3, Interesting)

dnavid (2842431) | about 3 months ago | (#47536759)

Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US.

On what basis do you judge that? On the fact that in the past, you didn't hear about all the things the government kept secret?

Both the initial drone strike program and the NSA surveillance programs were initially authorized and then kept secret during the Bush administration. The difference between then and now is not that this administration has kept them secret, but that they were discovered during this administration. What seems to be different is that during this administration more secret programs are coming to light rather than they are keeping significantly more secrets.

I often wonder how it is people forget that the Reagan administration included such gems as the Iran-Contra illegal arms sales and a huge number of federal investigations leading to indictment by executive officials (including James Watt, the former Secretary of the Interior), Bill Clinton was actually impeached by Congress (but not convicted), and George W. Bush started a war with Iraq costing thousands of American lives based on information we now know the administration knew was highly questionable. Even in the current far more partisan atmosphere far more Reagan officials were actually indicted or convicted of actual federal crimes, and last I checked the current administration hasn't started any questionable wars leading to thousands of casualties. Not to excuse any misconduct on the part of the current administration, but I think its an exaggeration to say this administration is objectively more secretive or less competent. It certainly isn't objectively more criminal.

Anyone remember Dick Cheney once attempted to claim simultaneously that as a member of the executive branch (being the Vice President) that he could claim executive immunity and refuse to disclose information to Congress, but also that as a member of the Senate (being the Constitutional President of the Senate by virtue of being the Vice President) the rules that apply to executive officers (including the President) when it came to security oversight did not apply to him? That's the standard upon which to judge the degree to which the current administration is "not transparent." Its a high hurdle.

Re:Transparency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536817)

No what!, Fuck beta and its masters.
I prefer to read slashdot as AC, but the stupid overlords of /. think they can render me into submissive by throwing me a fucking beta every once and so. This is done by IP address! I can read /. from certain IP I have access to without seeing the vomit for weeks or ever, but my home and work ip addresses have been captured as getting The Fucking Beta several times a day, regardless of preference or after logging in. Call it retribution.... This is profiling guys, so I am hiring a public notary to certify the recoding of this experiment, and show you how much manipulation the overlords of ./ are capable of.
Maybe ever a class-action will fit the bill.
Fuck BETA (just to match the IP with BETA BETA BETA, at fucking #beta #fucking_beta
search on twitter for the fucking beta experiment for class action at #beta #fucking_beta

Re:Transparency (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 3 months ago | (#47536927)

What most of us - including the politicos - forget is the fact that the "idea of being the POTUS" is attractive, not actually "being the POTUS."
BO was sure he is going to create history. And he did create history being the first black prez and all that. But then the actual job sucks. I have no idea how sane people willingly fight for this!
Still its better the illusion remains. Else the top decision makers will be much more worse than what we have now.

Re:Transparency (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47537213)

It is totally transparent. You can't see what it is doing at all.

Right .... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47535923)

If they have nothing to fear from the reports content then they should have nothing to hide.

4 Out of 5 Dentists Agree; (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 3 months ago | (#47535939)

The FBI isn't yet aware of the NSAs little brown submarine drones that listen in on FBI scuttlebutt in the loo.
Periscope UP! Only assholes in here captain.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47535955)

Why classify the report? EVERYONE KNOWS what it contains.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47535989)

Yes, and knowing what is in a classified document is now a crime! Therefor, we are all criminals, just like they had planned.

So, if you want a (slightly) less severe torture, it is recommended that you report immediately to your local concentration camp.

Re:Why? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 months ago | (#47536417)

Who gets extra "privacy" from drone use?
The main fear is US state based "Ag-gag" anti-whistleblower laws eg Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] getting media attention.
The price of getting videos showing animal cruelty is dropping.
The price of getting videos showing hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" pollution dropping.
A lot of US states are trying to use laws like: 'Commerce Protection Act", "an act relating to agricultural facility fraud", "Livestock Operation Interference Act", "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", "Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act", “visual or audio experience occurring at [an] animal facility.”
Just talking about federal law enforcement views around drones, HD media, size of drones, drone costs could alert national and state media to local stories as filler.
The best way out for the FBI is to redact all, no story, no media interest, no local press on their states expanding ag gag laws.

Let's take a page from their book... (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | about 3 months ago | (#47536027)

I guess the contents of the report show that their drone programs impacts privacy in ways that violate the law. So their drone program needs to be stopped.

What's that, FBI? It doesn't? Well then why don't you release the report, without any omitted material or redacting.
I mean, you say the program is working within the correct boundaries. You should have nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong.

Re:Let's take a page from their book... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536269)

> You should have nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong.

No. That's the arguments that the TSA Republican organization uses when anally raping you for the crime of trying to fly while poor. That is they way of their kind. They claim that is you have nothing to hide then it is your duty to allow a Republican to stick their fingers up your ass. That is what you are defending.

Re:Let's take a page from their book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536321)

Um, I'm sorry to tell you but the TSA is supported by both parties now. The Democrats are the Republicans but slightly less blatant and evil. So, no, criticizing terrible Democrats has nothing to do with supporting terrible Republicans. You may be shocked to learn that a huge number of critics of the current crop of Democrats are on the left, and previously considered Democrats as worth a vote, or the lesser of two evils.

Re:Let's take a page from their book... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537653)

I strongly doubt he is defending it as opposed to throwing their argument right back at them.
"You cannot complain about us peeking through your windows at night and sometimes feeling up your children. You have nothing to hide if you are not doing anything wrong!"
"You wish to hide the results of your reports about illegally peeking through our windows at night and sometimes feeling up our children? Why? Don't 'You have nothing to hide if you are not doing anything wrong'?"

Re:Let's take a page from their book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536281)

Don't worry. You can trust them. They will only stop us.

Let's TRY and understand their position (1)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about 3 months ago | (#47537455)

The reality will be that there are capabilities in the drones that they don't want to talk about. Now the interesting issue that this raises is that if a drone is used for a criminal case, it is the right of the defence to have ALL evidence gathered in the case, so actually the capabilities will become public if it is used in a case that comes to trial...

Re:Let's TRY and understand their position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537703)

Which is why they relabel you "terrorist" or "enemy combatant". Nothing gets to court, you were guilty all along, and nothing gets uncovered.

Goodbye USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536075)

I don't care anymore. I've already renounced my US citizenship and moved away. I suggest the rest of you do the same before it gets worse.

Re:Goodbye USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536217)

I do not have the WEALTH, EDUCATION or PEDIGREE to live elsewhere on the planet. It's my country because no one else will take me.

Re:Goodbye USA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537021)

I don't care anymore. I've already renounced my US citizenship and moved away. I suggest the rest of you do the same before it gets worse.

Fucking pussy. It's too hard to actually do something constructive to fix the problems, so you run away somewhere else.

If they target you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536131)

It might be time to plant your cell phone on your worst enemy available.

Better give them your new car too.

Re:If they target you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536423)

Calling Mr. Catfish!

Sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47536187)

...I think the government hides things, not from foreign threats, but from the internal threat of average Jane and Joe Schmoe flipping out if the government actually admitted their rights don't mean shit.

Re:Sometimes... (3, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47536223)

Only sometimes? And since when do average Jane and Joe Schmoe care about the constitution or fundamental liberties? Most people seem to want safety above all else, despite pretending to want freedom.

Re:Sometimes... (1)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about 3 months ago | (#47536391)

You are very correct. Look at personality types to confirm this. How many people want to open a business? How many just want a steady job? How many people are more than willing to follow along after a strong personality?

The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way. And if you think following another, or following the majority is the safest route, there is a good chance that's whats going to happen.

Re:Sometimes... (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47536413)

The fact is that humans are born to seek safety. In fact all living beings are programmed that way.

That really doesn't explain why some people are principled enough to reject safety in favor of freedom. And most of the 'risk' is vague or exaggerated in the case of terrorism anyway. There is really no direct threat or huge army coming to murder us, so it doesn't even mean sense. That's what makes it even more baffling.

Re:Sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537417)

There is really no direct threat or huge army coming to murder us, so it doesn't even mean sense. That's what makes it even more baffling.

If "it doesn't even make sense" were a criterion, 90% of the economy would be dead. A populace brainwashed into craving nonsense as an integral and indispensible part of its daily life of course can also be brainwashed into fearing nonsense as an integral indispensible part of its daily life.

Greedmongering and fearmongering are equally effective on people unfit for leading a rational self-determined life.

Re:Sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537685)

Steady Job has little to do with security vs freedom, and everything to do with "benefits". In a way, it's ambition.
They're quite rare nowadays but used to be that staying many years at your job meant you got lots of good stuff. Retirement, bonuses, pay going up and up... The alternative in many cases is to be minimally paid as "the new guy", with nothing to show for it when you finally retire, at job after job after job.

Think of it this way: In the old days, an ambitious man would wish to become a landed knight, and move up from there. Nowadays the company standard is "Thanks for your hard work, Squire. Your services are no longer required, off you go" followed by "Well we could use someone of your skillset and experience... alright we'll make you a Squire and start your training" alternating over and over.

Defining a liberal and a conservative (1)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about 3 months ago | (#47537309)

A 'liberal' is someone who has just been arrested and wants to assert their rights... whilst a 'Conservative' is someone who has just been mugged

Ask a contractor ... (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about 3 months ago | (#47536221)

... to get the PIA for you.

Think About It (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47536477)

At a time in at which criminals felt that cell phones were safe to use in committing their crime planning it caused a lot of them to end up in prison. As it became more apparent that cell phones were being used to catch criminals they switched tactics. So now we may have drones that are quite small and can plant a microphone in the plants near a porch where people are thought to be conspiring to commit crimes or organize terror attacks. Would you want them to really believe that such a technology could be applied to them at this time or perhaps let them think that such a technology is so expensive and rare that only much more important criminals were being watched? Nobody wants the government swimming in their soup bowl but on the other hand we may depend upon that type of law enforcement more than we know. It is not a simple issue and even beyond the Constitution is the fact that the government has a duty to persist over time to keep that constitution alive as well as the american people.

Re:Think About It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537649)

Keeping the constitution alive and the american people AS PEOPLE are parts of that duty though.
Persisting at the cost of the other two, well that's sorta doing it quite wrong.

I'd give you an opinion (2)

Coditor (2849497) | about 3 months ago | (#47536591)

but I classified it as top secret.

Key term: "Your Privacy" (1)

ebonum (830686) | about 3 months ago | (#47536629)

This is not an issue. It is protecting their privacy that matters.

Drones could be good for local cops. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537037)

The theory goes that with more drones you need less police on the streets. With less police on the streets there is less opportunity for cops to murder you.
Seriously! (I love it when someone says SERIOUSLY - because you know what came before, and what comes after is not serious at all).
But anyway, (I love it when people say ANYWAY - because it means, OK, I'm finally going to make a point.
The point is...(Do people really assume you are too dumb to follow a conversation?)

Cops really ought to stop killing people.

Trust the Gestapo, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537403)

they are professionals. Hail to the National Securialist Party!

No criminals = No job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47537473)

They're scared terrorist will quit once they find out just how much we're spying on people.

Makes Sense (1)

Isao (153092) | about 3 months ago | (#47537833)

PIA's generally discuss the technology or system in terms of how it would be used by the agency. For the FBI, this would likely include different operational scenarios, and certainly how drone data would be used in investigations. I can understand that such information would reveal strategies and tactics. As long as is has oversight by somebody (a point of discussion, I know) I'm fine with it being marked For Official Use Only (FOUO).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?