Obama allows NSA to share data with other USA spy agencies

[Genivaria]

After actually reading the article (OP's title is misleading BTW) I'm not seeing anything wrong here.

It says that the NSA can now share information ON REQUEST AND AFTER REVIEW with other AMERICAN agencies, not foreign intelligence agencies as the OP implies.

Ah. I wasn't trying to imply that it was foreign intelligence agencies, but I've clarified that it's USA spy agencies now. Thank you.

The FBI and DEA are not 'spy agencies'.

[Cannot think of a name]

If they weren't already doing this before, why the hell not?

I kinda thought that was the whole point of the intelligence restructuring that happened after 9/11 when different agencies had different pieces of the puzzle but since they didn't share they didn't put it together. But I guess it's an unholy mix of legitimate safeguards and bureaucracy.

[Lazarus Happy Insurance Corp]

The NSA claims that it has prevented 54 terrorist attacks. Even though that's probably false, it's still not very good value for money ($10,800,000,000/54=$200,000,000 per terrorist attack thwarted). If each terrorist attack that NSA thwarted was 9/11-scale (~3,000 innocent people dying), then it would add up to 162,000 innocent people saved (3,000*54=162,000). The cost of this would be $66,666.67 per person saved. ($10,800,000,000/162,000=66,666.66 recurring)

If we compare that with the CDC's statistics, then it's still less than deaths caused by cancer or heart disease. It suddenly looks like the money would save more people if it was spent on other things. Add that to the fact that Americans are giving up their privacy for this, and the NSA doesn't look like it's worth it.

Would you rather have Al-Qaeda nuking the Pentagon or anarchists unleashing a deadly biological weapon in New York? Americans have the right to sleep safe at night and if they must give up their privacy in the process, then let them.

More people die of food poisoning each year than terrorist attacks, something like 5,000 annually.

If everyone is so afraid of Consequence Nth that it justifies the wholesale abdication of things like Privacy, fundamental to human freedom, then all you need is to make people be afraid enough, and they'll willingly give up their freedoms. In fact they'll tear them down on their own.

Fear is the mind killer. Terrible sci-fi dialogue, but often true.

[Aclion]

Does this mean we can't call them "never shares anything" anymore?

[Thermodolia]

Surely US taxpayers would want their intelligence services to utilise their tax money in the most efficient way?

Efficiency? In the government? Surely you jest

[Marcurix]

The Intercept article
New York Times article
EFF article

I think that it is extremely bad for privacy because it gives many USA spy agencies even more information about everyone, even citizens of the USA. This information will be too easy to abuse.

Edit: Clarified that it was other USA spy agencies, not other spy agencies in general. Thank you, Genivaria!

If you don't like the information being collected, change the legislation.

Cooperation between its various agencies is one of the USA's biggest weak points, so by itself it is a sound step.

[Cannot think of a name]

The Intercept article
New York Times article
EFF article

I think that it is extremely bad for privacy because it gives many USA spy agencies even more information about everyone, even citizens of the USA. This information will be too easy to abuse.

Edit: Clarified that it was other USA spy agencies, not other spy agencies in general. Thank you, Genivaria!

If you don't like the information being collected, change the legislation.

To be fair, to the extent he has the power to do that, that is what he's doing. Whether you want to cynically hand over your right to petition government, short of actually running for office to specifically get put on the committees that make these decisions publicly talking about and making these points is part of the method of influencing policy that was the very intent of our system of government.

[Northwest Slobovia]

If they weren't already doing this before, why the hell not?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[The Corparation]

If they weren't already doing this before, why the hell not?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This isn't about the collection of data, this is about sharing what they've got. Also 4th amendment only applies to US Citizens, the bulk of the NSA's spy work is against foreign powers and I don't think you should need to get a warrant to spy on the Chinese.

[Northwest Slobovia]

A candidate who promises to dismantle the NSA will change his mind once he is informed of how many terrorist attacks the NSA has prevented (many of which do not make the news). You obviously don't care about national security.

The NSA claims that it has prevented 54 terrorist attacks. Even though that's probably false,

Well, the later admission is the key part, since it's two years after the first claim. IIRC, Congress demanded proof of said prevented attacks, and after much weasling, the spies admitted they had none.

The NSA does plenty other than spying on American citizens for laughs: their main mission to is eavesdrop on other goverments. That's still worthwhile, even if there are no domestic terrorist plots for them to no spy on.

[North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands]

The NSA claims that it has prevented 54 terrorist attacks. Even though that's probably false,

Well, the later admission is the key part, since it's two years after the first claim. IIRC, Congress demanded proof of said prevented attacks, and after much weasling, the spies admitted they had none.

The NSA does plenty other than spying on American citizens for laughs: their main mission to is eavesdrop on other goverments. That's still worthwhile, even if there are no domestic terrorist plots for them to no spy on.

You're right. I was just trying to deconstruct their own argument.

[Northwest Slobovia]

This isn't about the collection of data, this is about sharing what they've got. Also 4th amendment only applies to US Citizens, the bulk of the NSA's spy work is against foreign powers and I don't think you should need to get a warrant to spy on the Chinese.

From the last of the OP's linked articles:

However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security.

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the President's broad authority to conduct foreign affairs allows a lot of spying. However, where that authority contradicts other rights, SCOTUS has frequently said no. Suspected domestic crimes are what the Fourth Amendment is about, and that often takes precedence. I expect this will end up in front of SCOTUS soon enough.

[Lady Scylla]

As I discovered earlier after looking over EO archives. EO 12333 created by Ronald Reagan is where agencies like the NSA derive their powers from when collecting information and conducting surveillance. Bush further expanded on this with two EOs. This EO by Obama reads more like a transparency issue given the recent problems with conflicting reports of agencies from the hacking allegations.

[Unianater]

One more jab at Trump. Curious to hear why he did it

[Neutraligon]

One more jab at Trump. Curious to hear why he did it

Probably because it is necessary for these groups to share information? I mean that was supposed to be one of the fixes after 9/11.