Honestly, the idea that the NSA is going to go after senators and congressmen for doing their jobs with broad popular support is just a pure and obvious bluff. This would just increase the intensity of the controversy and spotlight, which is clearly the last thing the NSA and the Obama administration want right now.
These folks need to suck it up and go out on just a bit of a limb for the sake of our democracy. That is the oath they took and they bear much of the responsibility for allowing things to reach this point in the first place. If a 29 year old can risk his life and give up any chance of seeing home again to do the right thing, these supposed representatives of our interests can take a much, much smaller risk and do the same.
And what are we to do when their bluffs are revealed to be truthful, and the NSA's sway over all levels of government to be absolute? What if we were to learn that the Constitution is simply a feeble veneer meant to conceal the fact that there is certain legislation we're powerless to exert pressure over?
What happens when the sea of democracy recedes and all that's left are naked, stinking husks that were once called "congressional oversight" and "judicial oversight"?
My comment may the height of hyperbole and scaremongering, but it's difficult to ignore the opportunity to express myself in such a colorful manner.
I think the danger that members of Congress would be concerned with at the moment is being sanctioned by Congress itself. If you lose your collegial relationship with Congress then it's probably difficult to get your bills and amendments heard, and campaign funds from the general party coffers and specific itelligence lobbyists probably dry up too. They're worried about incumbency.
Blatant, open direct manipulation and punishment by the NSA is probably not here yet. Probably soon.
This seems to get more frustrating by the day. Greenwald depicts a system where the NSA/FISA are in cahoots, seemingly deciding for themselves what they should or shouldn't be doing.
Their stated regulatory agencies, the House/Senate, aren't even allowed to read info about what is they're doing -- yet the House/Senate have to vote on NSA authorizations? This is what Congress is receiving:
"Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends
Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business
Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine
Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is
classified."
How does this go on for so long!?
The Congressman received no response to any of his
requests. With a House vote looming on whether to
defund the NSA's bulk collection program - it was
scheduled for July 25 - he felt he needed the
information more urgently than ever. He recounted his
thinking to me: "How can I responsibly vote on a
program I know very little about?"
Yet they vote to fund it anyway, knowing that they don't know anything about the programs they're funding.
I'll say it again: we don't know if the security services blackmail politicians, and other influential or powerful people.
When I say black mail, simply knowing that one is routinely snooped on makes people more compliant. The implication can be enough. Had a few joints at college? Want to be a politician? Well, behave and be nice to security issues then, just in case... Very much the Soviet trick. Have every one assume they are spied on.
Not a US problem as such, one for the any relationship between security and politicians (and other powerful people), regardless of country or political system. And all because security insists on secrecy, which I am not convinced is required in a vast majority of cases.
To my mind, the lack of any real reaction to the NSA revelations, both in the US and here in the UK, increase my suspicion that this implied blackmail is rife, perhaps standard practice.
"In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued."
Well, since we're having a merry old time stomping all over the Constitution, I suppose asking what ramifications could possibly befall this Representative, considering the "Speech and Debate" immunity provided under Article 1, Section 6 of our allegedly-cherished Constitution, is a moot point. This is why it's probably best that I'm not in Congress, since I'd like to think that my response would have been "so?", followed by my continuing to press the issue. Sens. Wyden and Udall didn't take such a course, so I assume the consequences would have been dramatic.
Where is the StackOverflow for upcoming bills? There should be a simple site (which I may have to make myself) where people can vote on bills they think are important and draw attention to them.
For the uninvolved citizen, they could visit the site and see that [something like] SOAP 2.0 is voted most important to watch. They could then cast their own disproving vote for the bill, which the site would track so that come election time a notice such as "Senator John votes in accordance with your votes 20% of the time."
The user could easily express their opinions, the site would remember their opinions, and would tell the user when their representatives did not represent them.
Personally, I don't know what bills are important, and even if I did I wouldn't remember how my Senator voted 5 years from now when he's up for reelection.
This article is amazing. If you didn't read: two things it claims about the House intelligence oversight committee are:
* That it censored a congressman from discussing the contents of the Snowden leaks with other representatives (search for "sanctions")
* That this chairman allegedly made up a secret committee vote that didn't happen, and that in practice he can get away with this (search for "voice vote")
I hope Greenwald gets his chance to the hearing. So convenient for Obama to cancel his hearing [1], so they won't be able to have one until Congress gets back to work, so they have plenty of time to strategize against him, and get the politicians they need on their side.
If a congress person has balls they will risk everything to let the people know what is being done in secret to them. But it's tough to have balls when they would be happy if you deposited them in Guantanamo once you leave office. But the people who started this country didn't care what happened to them either when they took on the most powerful country on the planet. That's the kind of leader it would be nice to find.
Given that the NSA and it's sister organisations are now being squeezed, politically, what do you think their response will be?
Of course, the proper, professional and legitimate response is to sit back and to let the democratic process run it's course. We all hope and trust that this is what will happen.
However, given the resources at their disposal, it is not too difficult to speculate about what they might do (or be tempted to do) to secure their budget and to maintain their surveillance capabilities.
Similarly, after the current round of outrage and media attention has died down, what do you think that they will do to prevent something like this from happening again?
Beyond measures to prevent further leaks (that we already know they are considering) ... how might the technology that underpins tools such as Prism and XKeyScore be used to manipulate public opinion, to neutralise or mitigate the impact of those espousing hostile opinions, and to promote and spread a friendly point of view?
I am specifically thinking of man-in-the-middle attacks to manipulate messages and web-pages in-flight, to implement a sort of third-party hell-ban attack on activists and commentators. Is this possible without the collusion of the publisher?
Even if they were properly informed, doesn't Congress currently have something like a mid-teens approval rating? While they obviously should be overseeing everything that's going on, a rating like that doesn't exactly exude confidence from the American public that they'd even know what to do given the opportunity to do so.
It looks like these requests are being denied by the intelligence committee; do the asking members of Congress have the requisite security clearances? If so, I wonder if by law this information is restricted to members of the committee.
Ok, you guys are kind of blowing this way out of proportion. This is absolutely standard -- whenever classified information is disclosed unintentionally, you aren't allowed to discuss it in a non-secure compartmented facility. There are tons of reasons, starting with:
-Limiting exposure of the information already divulged
-Preventing further (especially unintentional) classified information spills
-Limiting adversaries collecting on what information and to what degree people are knowledgeable about
The fact is, if you're a legislator who is given compartmented access, you should know better than to propagate information that has been unintentionally released. For one, it promotes discussion of classified information in unclassified spaces. Secondly, it gives apparent validation to information that might not necessarily be true.
It's getting really tiresome reading these flavor-of-the-day NSA bashing articles, having worked at NSA and having eaten of the tree of knowledge. The intelligence community does not dictate foreign policy or collection policies. They serve at the direction of the federal government under the DNI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligen...), who is appointed by the president. They carry out the tasks that are given to them under the direction of the administration. There exists a feedback system which allows agencies to understand what information was vital in helping make decisions and what information wasn't important.
Here comes the tricky part: politicians clamor for more information in order to make better informed decisions -- just look at the situation with the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. When intelligence agencies don't come up with anything actionable, politicians ask "Why not?", to which the agencies respond, "We don't have enough access to real time information.", or "You stated that X mission wasn't important so we stopped supporting it.". Then the politicians rewrite legislation in order to prevent further roadblocks to obtaining information in a timely manner with which they can make decisions.
All of that happens, and you want to blame an intelligence agency for doing its job at various levels of efficiency? In that entire process, the agency only gives feedback as to what its capabilities are and what it needs in order to increase its capabilities. The administration and legislators determine the scope of the work which the agencies function in.
There is no secret conspiracy, people. It's a very simple system: you vote in people and then tell them that you want the prevention of terrorist attacks prioritized above funding NASA. The public is then made aware to what degree the politicians were willing to go to in order to expand intelligence powers, so outrage ensued. Now, there is legislation being pushed forward (not successfully yet) in order to limit the powers. Is this not a representative democracy working to correct its mistakes and push towards a more perfect union?
I'm sympathetic to this as I may know people who work at various DOD subsidiaries, and they are good people. That said, to deny there are no sociopathic power seekers in these organizations is just naive. Giving an absolute power that can so easily be abused to any organization is a terrible idea. Even if today they are lead by a metaphorical holy, righteous person, tommorow they may not be, and when such a change occurs it won't be announced like some cartoon villain holding a press conference declaring their evil plans for all to see. I agree that congress, at least certain members of it, those privy to this information, have no legitimate claim to ignorance and outrage (okay, maybe the former), but I see the bigger problem being a program like what is alleged is even allowed to be set up. They claim there is strict oversight/auditing of data, and while I have no doubts this is technically true, I highly doubt it is the story "on the ground", just based on my knowledge of human nature and large scale organizations.
Well they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions are certainly no excuse for allowing a system to be set up which can easily be abused to catastrophic effect and is near impossible to dismantle, even by its authors. That's particularly so for intelligence services of all people, who are supposed to apply some level of insight into risk. This looks like either a case of incompetence or malice and frankly I'm not sure which is more disturbing.
[+] [-] danenania|12 years ago|reply
These folks need to suck it up and go out on just a bit of a limb for the sake of our democracy. That is the oath they took and they bear much of the responsibility for allowing things to reach this point in the first place. If a 29 year old can risk his life and give up any chance of seeing home again to do the right thing, these supposed representatives of our interests can take a much, much smaller risk and do the same.
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
What happens when the sea of democracy recedes and all that's left are naked, stinking husks that were once called "congressional oversight" and "judicial oversight"?
My comment may the height of hyperbole and scaremongering, but it's difficult to ignore the opportunity to express myself in such a colorful manner.
[+] [-] sb057|12 years ago|reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
[+] [-] future_grad|12 years ago|reply
Provide proof?
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
Blatant, open direct manipulation and punishment by the NSA is probably not here yet. Probably soon.
[+] [-] dreamfactory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikegioia|12 years ago|reply
Their stated regulatory agencies, the House/Senate, aren't even allowed to read info about what is they're doing -- yet the House/Senate have to vote on NSA authorizations? This is what Congress is receiving:
How does this go on for so long!? Yet they vote to fund it anyway, knowing that they don't know anything about the programs they're funding.[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
When I say black mail, simply knowing that one is routinely snooped on makes people more compliant. The implication can be enough. Had a few joints at college? Want to be a politician? Well, behave and be nice to security issues then, just in case... Very much the Soviet trick. Have every one assume they are spied on.
Not a US problem as such, one for the any relationship between security and politicians (and other powerful people), regardless of country or political system. And all because security insists on secrecy, which I am not convinced is required in a vast majority of cases.
To my mind, the lack of any real reaction to the NSA revelations, both in the US and here in the UK, increase my suspicion that this implied blackmail is rife, perhaps standard practice.
[+] [-] techsupporter|12 years ago|reply
Well, since we're having a merry old time stomping all over the Constitution, I suppose asking what ramifications could possibly befall this Representative, considering the "Speech and Debate" immunity provided under Article 1, Section 6 of our allegedly-cherished Constitution, is a moot point. This is why it's probably best that I'm not in Congress, since I'd like to think that my response would have been "so?", followed by my continuing to press the issue. Sens. Wyden and Udall didn't take such a course, so I assume the consequences would have been dramatic.
[+] [-] Buttons840|12 years ago|reply
For the uninvolved citizen, they could visit the site and see that [something like] SOAP 2.0 is voted most important to watch. They could then cast their own disproving vote for the bill, which the site would track so that come election time a notice such as "Senator John votes in accordance with your votes 20% of the time."
The user could easily express their opinions, the site would remember their opinions, and would tell the user when their representatives did not represent them.
Personally, I don't know what bills are important, and even if I did I wouldn't remember how my Senator voted 5 years from now when he's up for reelection.
[+] [-] gizmo686|12 years ago|reply
The House Intelligence Committee is part of the house, so they are allowed to penalize Congressmen for speech.
[+] [-] redcircle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway_yy2Di|12 years ago|reply
* That it censored a congressman from discussing the contents of the Snowden leaks with other representatives (search for "sanctions")
* That this chairman allegedly made up a secret committee vote that didn't happen, and that in practice he can get away with this (search for "voice vote")
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled...
[+] [-] coldcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] northwest|12 years ago|reply
> "If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job", Rep. Griffith told me.
Very similar to the judges who do not know enough about technology and make decisions about things they don't understand.
[+] [-] w_t_payne|12 years ago|reply
Of course, the proper, professional and legitimate response is to sit back and to let the democratic process run it's course. We all hope and trust that this is what will happen.
However, given the resources at their disposal, it is not too difficult to speculate about what they might do (or be tempted to do) to secure their budget and to maintain their surveillance capabilities.
Similarly, after the current round of outrage and media attention has died down, what do you think that they will do to prevent something like this from happening again?
Beyond measures to prevent further leaks (that we already know they are considering) ... how might the technology that underpins tools such as Prism and XKeyScore be used to manipulate public opinion, to neutralise or mitigate the impact of those espousing hostile opinions, and to promote and spread a friendly point of view?
I am specifically thinking of man-in-the-middle attacks to manipulate messages and web-pages in-flight, to implement a sort of third-party hell-ban attack on activists and commentators. Is this possible without the collusion of the publisher?
[+] [-] julianozen|12 years ago|reply
Congress is vaguely qualified to assess data collection techniques.
[+] [-] uptown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stretchwithme|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codex|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ferdo|12 years ago|reply
― Lysander Spooner
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
Simple as that. If Congress is truly serious about this, they should strip the NSA of its funding.
[+] [-] bazillion|12 years ago|reply
-Limiting exposure of the information already divulged
-Preventing further (especially unintentional) classified information spills
-Limiting adversaries collecting on what information and to what degree people are knowledgeable about
The fact is, if you're a legislator who is given compartmented access, you should know better than to propagate information that has been unintentionally released. For one, it promotes discussion of classified information in unclassified spaces. Secondly, it gives apparent validation to information that might not necessarily be true.
It's getting really tiresome reading these flavor-of-the-day NSA bashing articles, having worked at NSA and having eaten of the tree of knowledge. The intelligence community does not dictate foreign policy or collection policies. They serve at the direction of the federal government under the DNI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligen...), who is appointed by the president. They carry out the tasks that are given to them under the direction of the administration. There exists a feedback system which allows agencies to understand what information was vital in helping make decisions and what information wasn't important.
Here comes the tricky part: politicians clamor for more information in order to make better informed decisions -- just look at the situation with the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. When intelligence agencies don't come up with anything actionable, politicians ask "Why not?", to which the agencies respond, "We don't have enough access to real time information.", or "You stated that X mission wasn't important so we stopped supporting it.". Then the politicians rewrite legislation in order to prevent further roadblocks to obtaining information in a timely manner with which they can make decisions.
All of that happens, and you want to blame an intelligence agency for doing its job at various levels of efficiency? In that entire process, the agency only gives feedback as to what its capabilities are and what it needs in order to increase its capabilities. The administration and legislators determine the scope of the work which the agencies function in.
There is no secret conspiracy, people. It's a very simple system: you vote in people and then tell them that you want the prevention of terrorist attacks prioritized above funding NASA. The public is then made aware to what degree the politicians were willing to go to in order to expand intelligence powers, so outrage ensued. Now, there is legislation being pushed forward (not successfully yet) in order to limit the powers. Is this not a representative democracy working to correct its mistakes and push towards a more perfect union?
[+] [-] ryanmolden|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamfactory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Khaine|12 years ago|reply