7 ms·
> I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail? My suspicion is that the FBI and
by jamoes 11y ago
> I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail?
My suspicion is that the FBI and various three-letter-agencies have dirt on most of the elected representatives. The mass surveillance apparatus is the perfect tool for collecting blackmail material on current and future leaders.
- raquo 11y agoThat would also explain why corruption is allowed to happen, kinda. Is there a realistic exit from that situation?
- jsnathan 11y agoIF this were the case, then the solution would be a whistleblower. Or someone hacking into the system, who makes the information collected public. Of course this person would face even more risk than Snowden ever did.
- r00fus 11y agoOn could argue that was why Aaron Swartz died. Of course discussing this is considered "CT".
- tptacek 11y agoThat is certainly the most amusing and dramatic explanation of what's happening. A simpler explanation might just be that Congress broadly supports what DOJ is doing, and cares a lot less about the integrity of specific online services than they do about DOJ's role in combating terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and foreign intelligence services.
- saosebastiao 11y agoThe FBI's founding director had this very tactic as his modus operandi. It isn't hard to speculate that the culture of the FBI has supported political extortion for well over 80 years now.
- tptacek 11y agoThat's true. J Edgar Hoover did do this. Of course, Hoover is also one of the great villains of US history, and there was a major course-correction in the 1970s regarding the legal process federal law enforcement has to adhere to. "The FBI is run by the modern equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover" is also an amusing and dramatic interpretation of the facts we have now. But they don't square well with other facts we know, such as Ashcroft's hospital-bed refusal to reauthorize STELLARWIND. And that was John Ashcroft, who is not exactly a cuddly Sesame Street muppet on these issues. In case I need to make this clear: I don't think sacrificing the integrity of online services for DOJ goals is a good tradeoff. The wins seem very marginal, and the long-term costs are huge. But I'm a technologist with a security/privacy concentration, and Congress is composed mostly of lawyers.
- icanhackit 11y agoBut they don't square well with other facts we know, such as Ashcroft's hospital-bed refusal to reauthorize STELLARWIND. More info: In March 2004, the Justice Department under Ashcroft ruled that the Stellar Wind domestic intelligence program was illegal. The day after the ruling, Ashcroft became critically ill with acute pancreatitis. President Bush sent his White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. to Ashcroft's hospital bed. They wanted him to sign a document reversing the Justice Department's ruling. But the semi-conscious Ashcroft refused to sign; Acting Attorney General James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel for DOJ, were there to back him up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Attorney_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Attorney... Original Source: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09072007/transcript2.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09072007/transcript2.html
- tptacek 11y agoThis story is also featured in Barton Gellman's _Angler_, which is a great book, and if you're following the Snowden drama Gellman's name should be familiar.
- jacquesm 11y ago
- ipsin 11y agoI personally think it's a combination of things. Sometimes Congress is just on board with what's happening. Sometimes they don't have an idea what's happening. Other times, the surveillance state has their finger on the scale. I think the case of Jane Harman is the creepiest example of this -- a case where the DoJ withheld prosecution of a surveillance "friend", derived from NSA surveillance, so that she could continue to support an NSA surveillance program. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-dang...
- jacquesm 11y agoSelective prosecution is one of the stronger abuses of power there is.
- SCAQTony 11y agoDamn straight! it's so demonstrable that our laws are being selectively enforced but what happens when Habeas corpus is selective enforced? We came damn close to losing it in 2006.
- selimthegrim 11y agoYou neglect to mention that _Harman herself_ was on the other end of that line.
- jMyles 11y agoAlthough this is a very plausible scenario, I'm not sure it's the "simpler" answer. It requires an incredible political will in favor of an extraordinarily controversial set of programs. It seems to me that the "simpler" explanation is that these programs, whose existence and scope are no longer in dispute, have indeed generated intelligence about questionable conduct of members of / leadership of one or both houses of congress.
- awqrre 11y agoIt's surprising that some people still think that terrorism prevention is a true priority.
- tptacek 11y agoI don't think that. I think DOJ and NSAs true priority is "maximize headcount".
- pdkl95 11y agoNobody claimed that. There are many different priorities the DOJ and NSA may have besides "terrorism prevention" and "maximize headcount".
- CWuestefeld 11y agoTo be clear: do you mean maximizing the headcount of the USA, i.e., preventing domestic deaths? Or (more likely) do you mean empire building in the sense of increasing the size and power of their own organizations?
- tptacek 11y agoI mean increasing the number of people on their payroll. I think power is secondary to that objective.
- kobayashi 11y agoSaw a level-headed response in a privacy and surveillance thread. Of course it's tptacek.
- ibejoeb 11y agoHang on a sec before dismissing this notion: this is precisely how Petraeus fell.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brandonmenc 11y ago> The mass surveillance apparatus is the perfect tool for collecting blackmail material on current and future leaders. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's shocking how rarely you hear this angle on things, but it's easily the most sinister aspect of these programs.
- peteretep 11y agoIt's also the one that will most likely kill these programs dead. Neither party wants security agencies picking winners for them, or deciding who gets to be in Congress.
- tailgate 11y agoIt's somewhat shocking that smart people will believe this with the only proof being a man who died over 40 years ago.
- jacquesm 11y agoThe proof is quite extensive.
- profeta 11y agodo not forget that Snowden made it pretty clear the NSA was spying on the German Prime Minister, for the german intelligence agency! ...guess what may have been the offer they had. My guess? One agency spy on the other's leader as part of the job, exchange for its own leader info = ultimate power without the risk of a treason charge while investigating your own leader.
- ewoodrich 11y ago*German Chancellor
- yarou 11y agoThat's an awfully charitable view you have of politicians in the United States. The corruption is so deep within the US government that three letter agencies needn't blackmail any elected official. Our elected officials are collaborators; Quisling-types that pay lip service to the founding ideals of our great Republic.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoEven if they don't, they can make it. They can bust any politician for career ruining material quite easily. If the FBI says you have CSA images on someone's machine, how many are going to doubt the FBI?