Not acceptable and not much you can do about it.

Published on July 27, 2014 By DrJBHL In Everything Else

The FBI has been using drones for some time probably about 9 years). Years, in fact. When Sen. Paul (R-KY) started asking questions about that, the FBI decided to comply with the law and did the requisite “Privacy Impact Analysis”…which is on one hand pretty funny and on the other hand pretty serious. Since the FBI started the drone business in 2005, and deployed them in 2006, there had to be a PIA (which I’m sure the FBI and any other Agency receiving one considers them) and records show that at least one was completed. It should be available by FOIA – at least on line, by default.

Therefore, Muckrock filed a series of FOIA’s because, well, that’s what Muckrock does to obtain those PIA/PIAs. It even fought a tough lawsuit for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

So? They got the PIA, right? Nope.

All those PIA documents have been redacted in full. Even the cover page. Turns out there’s a Catch-22 or Rule-22, if you will which isn’t totally outrageous. Some things have to remain secret, although you have to really wonder just who gets to decide that.

“Justice Department guidelines allow agencies to withhold PIAs if publication would “reveal classified, sensitive, or otherwise protected information (e.g., potentially damaging to a national interest, law enforcement effort, or competitive business interest).” Department guidelines require separate justification for keeping PIA findings from the public, but the FBI did not release any such justification documents, either.” – Muckrock

So they refiled because the FBI didn’t even bother to justify the non production of documents. Just what that will accomplish is unclear.

So what’s funny about the whole thing?

“When asked to clarify the wholesale redaction of the privacy impact assessment, the FBI cited its litigation with CREW as a block on responding. "Unfortunately this matter is pending litigation," wrote Christopher Allen of the FBI Office of Public Affairs, "so I will not be able to comment."- Muckrock

In other words, “Do drones invade your privacy? Sorry, that’s private”.

So much for the promised transparency.

Btw, by writing about privacy, I’ve probably triggered NSA interest: Check this Make Use Of article out. Not that they need an excuse…they can always lose the HDD.

Sources:

http://www.neowin.net/news/fbi-redacts-entire-drone-privacy-assessment

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/jul/24/fbi-refuses-release-drone-privacy-assessment/

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/interest-privacy-will-ensure-youre-targeted-nsa/

Comments (Page 5)

Jafo

on Jul 30, 2014

starkers

reply 59

Like I said, most fail to grasp the concept.

You may need a mirror....

You enter the world with nothing.

You leave the world with nothing.

Along the way, experiences shape you.

There is no intrinsic inherent 'morality'. That is a myth. Humanity is a collective noun. Humane is an adjective ostensibly a descriptor of the noun.

All else is interpretation and interpolation....

Borg999

on Jul 30, 2014

Jafo

reply 61

Quoting starkers,

reply 59

Like I said, most fail to grasp the concept.

You may need a mirror....

You enter the world with nothing.

You leave the world with nothing.

Along the way, experiences shape you.

There is no intrinsic inherent 'morality'. That is a myth. Humanity is a collective noun. Humane is an adjective ostensibly a descriptor of the noun.

All else is interpretation and interpolation....

Yes, in the age old nature vs. nurture argument, it's all nurture!..."tabula rasa".

This is a case where bringing up Hitler and other Eugenics types would be meaningful.

Jafo

on Jul 30, 2014

Careful with that axe, Eugene ...

Borg999

on Jul 30, 2014

Jafo

reply 63

Careful with that axe, Eugene ...

Can I use Maxwell's silver hammer instead?

screamingpalm

on Jul 30, 2014

Jafo

reply 57

You weren't 'born with it'. The only thing you're born with is 'animal instinct'.

Common sense, human nature, morality, and all the other equivalents are LEARNED either by association, education, experience or trial-and-error.

A willingness to be a part of [your] society determines how closely you follow its rules/ideals/mores.

Those who don't will often regard themselves as 'individuals', 'rebels' or even 'superior than thou' but more often than not they are simply categorized as criminals and treated as such.

Animal instinct is what protects your offspring/family/breeding partner/s. How vigourously you do that determines how violent or even 'immoral' you may be perceived by others.

Self-control, reason, common sense, decency, morality ....they're all learned.

The only bit you got right is there's no need for religion [of any flavour] to be involved in the process of learning...

That's an interesting topic, and could take up a whole thread for itself. I think this is probably right, and I have no scientific evidence to the contrary, but I wonder if there are traits you are "born with" that makes a person more inclined or to have more of an aptitude to learn those behaviors. Society dictates the rules of morality, but could they be inherent either for or against? As a father I can't help but see the differences with my kids in how they accept morality, personality traits that they've had since shortly after birth. Not sure if I can take credit for the big heart and care of my second daughter (she's like an angel- and that is said from an atheist

), but maybe the mischief of my first.

Then again, I don't believe morality needs to be learned or that religion is necessary to implant it.

Edit: attempting to fix quote (failed)

Cauldyth

on Jul 30, 2014

There's plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

screamingpalm

on Jul 30, 2014

Cauldyth

reply 66

There's plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Now that you mention it, I do remember seeing a show that attributes empathy as an innate trait that separates us from the apes etc. I guess I can't feel too bad about using anecdotes after all.

That's also the word I should have used in my contradictory post above: empathy doesn't need to be taught etc... perhaps morality does as it is dictated by societal rules.

the_Monk

on Jul 30, 2014

Just to veer somewhat back 'on-topic'......

Makes one wonder about any real need for future 'privacy legislation' when at some point the 'drones' mentioned will be pre-programmed with default 'morals/ethics' code and with the ability to learn (build on that) will be able to make 'judgment calls' regarding privacy etc. on a case-by-case basis without human operator interference?

Or maybe I just wandered into the sci-fi realm of the internet and got lost, hard to tell sometimes.....

screamingpalm

on Jul 30, 2014

the_Monk

reply 68

Just to veer somewhat back 'on-topic'......

Makes one wonder about any real need for future 'privacy legislation' when at some point the 'drones' mentioned will be pre-programmed with default 'morals/ethics' code and with the ability to learn (build on that) will be able to make 'judgment calls' regarding privacy etc. on a case-by-case basis without human operator interference?

Or maybe I just wandered into the sci-fi realm of the internet and got lost.....

As much as I enjoy Mr Wardell's AI programming, I hope he's not in charge of that 'morals/ethics' code.

Cauldyth

on Jul 30, 2014

But again, if there's one thing we humans are excellent at, it's overcoming our natural inclinations and reprogramming ourselves on-the-fly. It's what's made us so successful and adaptable as a species.

screamingpalm

on Jul 30, 2014

Cauldyth

reply 70

I guess it depends a lot on one's definition of morality, which is where these discussions often derail. But as an example, monkeys will show empathy and compassion to each other, even if they weren't raised in part of the "monkey community" (couldn't resist using that phrase). They're just naturally inclined that way, as are we. They're also naturally inclined to band together and then beat the **** out of their monkey neighbours on occasion, as are we.

But again, if there's one thing we humans are excellent at, it's overcoming our natural inclinations and reprogramming ourselves on-the-fly. It's what's made us so successful and adaptable as a species.

Hmm yeah I could be remembering it wrong. I think that empathy is more of an inherent trait though, while morality is an evolving set of rules (ie treatment of Muslims, views on same sex marriage, etc).

psychoak

on Jul 30, 2014

You weren't 'born with it'. The only thing you're born with is 'animal instinct'.

Empathy is the foundation of morality. Unless you're born a sociopath, empathy is one of those animal instincts you're born with. It takes years of neglect to create a sociopath from a normal baby. There is more than enough empirical data to throw out the blank slate nonsense idiots came up with.

Studies with as young as three month olds have shown a clear systematic knowledge of right and wrong, including retaliation for bad behavior, and rewards for good behavior. Aside from shitting all over the place, they're quite idealistic.

Cauldyth

on Jul 30, 2014

Perhaps they're just not judgmental about feces.

Edit: Neither are monkeys! The circle is complete...

DrJBHL

on Jul 30, 2014

Cauldyth

reply 73

Empathy is the foundation of morality.

That was stated as an absolute. That is simply not the case, and there are various thoughts on the origins of morality - religion, social theory, etc. None is really proven and they are the subject of debate. There's also nothing "wrong" about believing one or another.

screamingpalm

reply 67

empathy as an innate trait that separates us from the apes etc.

I wouldn't be so quick to rely on that as 'fact'. Elephants stay around sick/wounded elephants to protect them. So do dogs. Elephants even stop an appear to change behaviors when they arrive at a site where that elephant was located in the past.

When communication between species is mainly based on guess work, one can't really know if that is correct or not. What might appear to be 'empathetic' behavior might just be 'reflex' behavior in that species and not a result of cognitive thought/values as we know it. While it might be true, it might not as well.

I don't espouse any particular view but, I think it's rather difficult to prove this one way or another.

Jafo

on Jul 30, 2014

Miles away from the OP, aren't we?...

Reminds me of that old saying.....if I walk a mile in your shoes....I'm a mile away from you...and I've got your shoes...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!