9 ms·
NSA Cheerleaders Discover Value of Privacy Only When Their Own Is Violated
- peteretep 11y agoThis is what gives me hope. All politicians have skeletons in their cupboards, none trust their opponents to use their power fairly.
- Shivetya 11y agowe busted Nixon for less, you do not spy on Congress just because you don't like the head of state they are talking too
- TillE 11y agoSo this is an absolute scandal which reaches the very top, but the CIA hacking Senate computers is what, no big deal?
- Amorymeltzer 11y agoThe better analogy is to J. Edgar Hoover, about whom presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon did nothing, many of whom disliked, distrusted, and feared the man.
- cronjobber 11y agoSame with journalists. They're at most lukewarm on privacy, maybe a little less now but certainly before Snowden, until someone wants to touch their privilege as members of the press to have untapped phone lines etc.
- at-fates-hands 11y agoThe ironic part of your statement is that the Justice Department scrutiny of James Rosen came and went and nothing was done. One of the foundations of this republic is a free press. In his case, you had a major abuse of power where the government started seizing his emails and going through them without his knowledge to try and build a case against him to release one of his sources to a story. And what happened? Absolutely nothing. No one was charged, there was no investigation, and two years on, does anybody even remember it or even care about it?
- HillRat 11y agoAh, schadenfreude at work: Pete Hoekstra: Obama Stopping Key Surveillance Programs Dec 11, 2015 Pete Hoekstra: New Spying Scandal Biggest of Obama's Presidency 13 hours ago Not that Hoekstra is going to change his tune on surveillance; he just believes in the national security state for thee, not me. I've always felt that one of the more corrupt aspects of the UK security state was the exemption granted to Parliament from the kinds of intrusions other citizens lack protections against; now I expect Hoekstra and the other surveillance cheerleaders to try and carve out the same privileges for Congress.
- arethuza 11y agoI'm sure that neither GCHQ or the Security Service would dream of directly spying on their political masters - the NSA will be doing it and they'll get to share some of the results.
- jacquesm 11y ago> I'm sure that neither GCHQ or the Security Service would dream of directly spying on their political masters - the NSA will be doing it and they'll get to share some of the results. Well, only because they don't have to. I'm sure that they will be more than happy to provide the reverse service in return.
- mtgx 11y agoMost of the Congress/Parliament are not their "masters" per se, so why would they care? If I'm not mistaken Clapper has already admitted the NSA is "inadvertedly" spying on Congress, too, so clearly this isn't such a big issue for them as to not make it possible to spy on them even inadvertedly anymore.
- vidarh 11y ago> I've always felt that one of the more corrupt aspects of the UK security state was the exemption granted to Parliament from the kinds of intrusions other citizens lack protections against The Wilson doctrine was recently found by courts to not having any legal force [1]. As it should be, as it was just a promise made by the then Prime Minister, which was never put through parliament. What is more astonishing is that MPs have believed successive governments would adhere to it - and ensure the security agencies adhered to it - without the force of law. Astonishingly Theresa May then claimed in parliament that the Wilson Doctrine "remains unchanged". Which I guess is technically true, in that it has never actually applied, but at the same time it was double-speak of the highest order. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Doctrine#2015_Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Doctrine#2015_Investiga...
- legel 11y agoEqual justice before the law is essential for any true democracy to function. And whatever laws we implement, it is their fair and equal implementation that will be in the best interest of everyone. So if it's really best to have more or less surveillance, either way we should have members of government under the same surveillance, just the same as the citizens being governed. This is probably welcomed news from the average citizen, who already feels (and fears) the end of privacy and the endless gaze of our panopticon surveillance systems.
- Armisael16 11y agoThe average citizen doesn't notice or care about the NSA/CIA/whoever.
- legel 11y agoYou're probably right. Edit: average Hacker News citizen.
- JackFr 11y agoWhile equal justice before the law is essential, it is well understood that since at least the ancient Greek city states and the Roman Republic, that certain public offices are conferred with with special rights, privileges and responsibilities. That lawmakers, in the process of deliberation and legislation have a greater expectation of privacy is arguable, but not unreasonable.
- wpietri 11y agoIf they are using them as part of their official duties, then yes, special privileges can be reasonable. But then logically surveillance is one of the things they can't really object to; if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to?
- JackFr 11y agoBut they are not doing the business of government, they are determining what the business of government is. And in particular as Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the Presidency. Just as Congress shouldn't ask the GAO Office of Special Investigations to bug the Oval Office, the President should not have the NSA conduct surveillance on members of Congress.
- JackFr 11y agoI think Greenwald misses Hoekstra's point entirely. Consider an analogous situation. Republicans are up in arms because [they believe] right-wing groups were targeted by the IRS for political purposes. No one is proposing that the IRS be dismantled, or that its purpose is illegitimate, but rather its improper use as a political tool of the executive branch is wrong and possibly criminal. Similarly, I'm sure Hoekstra has not changed his tune a bit regarding NSA surveillance in general. The scandal is using the intelligence apparatus as a political tool.
- danielahn 11y agoWho better to surveil than those who may have access to state secrets, and are actively talking with representatives of other countries? Members of Congress should be at the top of the list for NSA surveillance.
- XorNot 11y agoPerhaps more important to note: are, and its not a secret. Members of government in general have very little expectation of privacy when it comes to their communications, to the point that it's a significant issue with Hillary Clinton's private email server that the mail is unrecoverable in some cases for auditing purposes.
- JackFr 11y agoThe rights and obligations of a member of congress and the rights and obligations of a cabinet secretary appointed at the pleasure of the President are fundamentally different. They are not just 'members of government'.
- hobs 11y agoI don't think Greenwald misses that point, he (like anyone who understands the scope of spying at play) clearly understands the implications of massive spying and how that could play into blackmailing our other branches of government. The point of the article is pointing and laughing at people who cant make the logical leap of, "if they do it to someone else, they might do it to me.", the political uses are just the MOST obvious thing to do in this scenario.
- awakeasleep 11y agoA better article could have been written about how an unwritten rule is broken when the state uses its security apparatus to investigate and discredit its own elected officials. Crossing that line destroys the plausible deniability surveillance enjoys. You can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument when the surveillance directly subverts the domestic government. And of course thats what we were all worried about, and it's the most arresting sort of example for everyone. And how did that 'unwritten rule' become a thing in the first place? A lot of the wide appeal and scary implications that could be written about gets lost when gloating about how lemmings 'flip-flopped' after they walked into that machine that rips off their heads.
- lambda 11y agoYou can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument when the surveillance directly subverts the domestic government. What prevents a member of the domestic government from being a terrorist, or having ties to terrorists?
- ph0rque 11y ago> What prevents a member of the domestic government from being a terrorist, or having ties to terrorists? Mostly semantics (depending on how one defines "terrorist" and "ties").
- awakeasleep 11y agoElected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government. Their policies are the legitimate policies of the government. The security and defense wings of the government are strictly subservient to the policies of elected officials, or it's no longer a democratic government.
- vidarh 11y agoWhile I agree with the principle, and have severe objections to the security services being allowed to engage in that kind of surveillance because of the significant threats it poses - I would rather take the risk of extra terror as I see it as far smaller -, this does still not preclude elected officials from being terrorists or having close contact with terrorists. Nothing says that terrorists, or their supporters, never represents the will of at least a sufficient part of the people to gain representation. In fact, we have many prominent examples where terrorists or people with close associations with terrorist groups have been elected to public office. Some you might sympathise with, others not so much: IRA's ties to Sinn Fein, which has seats in the UK parliament, for example. Or the ANC, whose armed wing used to carry out bombings targeting civilians. Or Hamas. Or most prime ministers of Israel (most of whom were parts of terror organizations like Irgun or Haganah in their youth).
- oskarth 11y agoAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
- steven2012 11y agoIs it really surprising that our politicians believe they are above the laws that they create? They believe the laws are for us sheep and not for the wolves. Look at the insider trading laws for Congress as an example.
- hanniabu 11y agoWell technically they don't think they are above the law and aren't breaking any laws because they write into legislation exceptions for themselves. And for anybody that doesn't know about the insider trading....insider trading isn't illegal for them. That's most likely one reason they get so rich in office.
- adekok 11y agoNever attribute to maliciousness what can be better attributed to stupidity. I've worked with managers who simply couldn't comprehend that a particular issue was a problem for the engineering department. No amount of examples, demonstrations, or complaints helped. It wasn't an issue for them, so the issue didn't exist. Their story changed later when they ran into the issue. It was now a problem that had to be fixed immediately. I would explain very slowly that yes, this was a problem. And that they had been made aware of it months ago. And that they had opposed fixes to the problem. The response, of course, was blank incomprehension. They just couldn't understand that they were incapable of understanding something. Needless to say, I don't work with those kind of people any more.
- steven2012 11y agoI am very, very consciously attributing this to maliciousness. Have you not been paying attention to US politics for the last ~15 years?
- atom-morgan 11y ago> Never attribute to maliciousness what can be better attributed to stupidity. We are talking about the government here.
- vinceguidry 11y agoHypocrisy is an inevitable consequence of politics. A politicians job in a democratic society is to be an instrument of public will. Well, the public is made up of countless mindsets and ideals, some of which are going to conflict with others. Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth because the only alternative is silence, and silence is career death. You judge a politician by which bloc they vote most consistently for, not by what they say.
- pg_is_a_butt 11y agoyou're all fucking idiots. bombs are the only solution.
- mwsherman 11y agoThis is not hard to understand. Gov’t officials believe that the work they do is different in kind. This is a philosophical belief. The desire to be in government requires this belief to a greater or lesser degree. So the idea that citizens should be monitored, but not gov’t officials, is intuitive from this point of view. A variation on diplomatic immunity, if you will. It’s not irrational or uncommon. I happen to disagree with it as much as a human possibly can. But one can understand the position.
- bitchypat 11y ago>But one can understand the position. It is perhaps understandable in a communist dictatorship, but how exactly is that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives of their constituents, they do not work for anyone except their constituents. And 'work' is imprecise verbiage - they serve. Undermining the constitutional freedoms of the people they serve is far from an understandable position for any elected person. Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?
- stillsut 11y agoNixon orders one little intelligence gathering operation and everybody goes crazy #NotACrook
- marktangotango 11y agoA lot of easily offended Nixon supporters here it seems, judging from the downvotes...
- dfc 11y agoI think the explanation is that the HN crowd appreciates mature discussion and could do without the derpy comments regardless of what president is punchline.
- 11y ago
- ck2 11y agoIt's not that they discovery the value of privacy. They really believed nsa (and law enforcement otherwise) will only use their powers against the "bad guys" and that they would never be subjected to invasions of privacy. They don't care if NSA violates everyone else's privacy as long as theirs isn't violated. Just like congress gets a special pass through TSA checkpoints, they don't care as long they aren't hassled and subjugated to violations of rights.
- mightybyte 11y agoNow we just need to get personal dirt on all of congress as well as the Supreme Court justices leaked...
- kmfrk 11y agoA nice little coda to CISA being passed in the omnibus bill.
- csandreasen 11y agoTo put this into perspective, it's worth noting that this was an issue of almost unprecedented contention between the US and Israel over whether or not to lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for nuclear disarmament. What Israel does to advance its foreign policy objectives is definitely within the purview of a foreign intelligence agency, and in this case the Israeli government was very actively lobbying congress. It seems pretty clear to me that the goal was to find out what Israel was doing, not spy on Congress. The folks over at Lawfare had a much different breakdown of the issue: https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-do-conservatives-suddenly-sound-intercept-over-nsa https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-do-conservatives-suddenly-so... Relevant quote: Was the activity properly disclosed to the intelligence committees? Actually, NSA’s behavior with respect to Israel appears to have been briefed to Congress, as one would hope. “Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees” (emphasis added).
- HashThis 11y agoPeople should really understand how revolting what is happening. Watch the congressman indignant about spying on Israel. What is happening here is that they are putting the privacy of a foreign country higher than US citizens. Politicians and the establishment actively force privileges for a PRIVILEGED CLASS. They treat foreign countries and corporations as being more important that US citizens. People need to see that there are fundamental problems with the establishments. This congressman never worries when the constitutional right of privacy is stripped from US citizens, but not from the privilege classes.
- tertius 11y agoMay it be that the circumstances are more than just "privacy being stripped." For instance, what does the administration have to gain from spying en masse vs. what does that administration have to gain by spying specifically on another branch of government? I'm not saying either of those things are ethical, rather that the second one is different and we should be upset about it for different reasons. We can be upset at both, but to say they 100% the same is not understanding the larger situation. * I don't know the congressman's own record about spying on the populace, but if he's all for it then I don't agree with that.
- themartorana 11y agoFantastic point. WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power. — Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015 If he was just upset at spying on Congress, that'd be one thing. In fact, (and mentioned in the article) Hoekstra basically scoffed at foreign leaders being mad about being targeted for surveillance. But we knew the NSA spied on Congress a while ago. You'll notice he has zero outrage for spying on US citizens. But the article outlines several of the most egregious hypocrisies. It's staggering how boldly our leaders in Congress support, then don't, mass warrantless surveillance when they find out they're part of the "mass."
- banku_brougham 11y agoI imagine the NSA having dirt on numerous Congressional representatives, and I imagine the leverage obtained via threat of judicious release of such info in a politically damaging way. Not in a way that reveals the wiretap of course; think 'parallel construction.' Now imagine the congresswoman or man who attempts to reduce the funding or curtail the powers of the NSA, and how convincing they could be in dissuading any action that slows the increase of powers, privileges or funding for the security agencies. As with entropy I can only see the arrow moving in one direction, heedless of the concerns of the population or their representatives.
- shmerl 11y agoSome learn only when they taste their own medicine. The worst part - such hypocrites aren't fit to be politicians.
- typon 11y agoAs an outsider, watching this happen in the US is like watching a really slow car accident. This country is being destroyed slowly by its own leaders. As long as the leaders and others in power are not held accountable by law, there can be no sustainable social progress.
- KirinDave 11y agoWhich country in western society is NOT facing a crisis of surveillance this decade? The entire EU political scene is frothy with special exemptions in the wake of the Paris attacks. We're just in an early election cycle so this stuff comes to the fore as ammunition against the current executive.
- typon 11y agoFine, I see this as more a problem with Western Civilization than just America. America provides the most spectacular and clear example though.
- KirinDave 11y agoI agree. We've inherited a country that has, by and large, completely abrogated any responsibility to educate our citizens. As such we've got a growing education gap at least as wide as our income gap. The result is that a lot of stuff that would have to be more subtle or more carefully timed just works in the US. But we're seeing similar conservative playbooks on Hungary and Poland on an incredible timetable. The EU isn't well equipped to deal with countries that cheerfully dismantle their own constitution.
- mml 11y agoIn reality, today's modern American politician is positively angelic compared to any time in history. The good old days weren't that good really.
- kordless 11y agoIt shouldn't be surprising that a congressperson's actions switch polarity at times. They have to try to toe the line of general concensus until there are clear "winners" to an argument.
- dawnbreez 11y agoI've got some popcorn, if anyone wants some. In all seriousness, the chances are that this guy took a strong-spying position because that falls in line with his party and opposes his opponent's posititon. He most likely began opposing it as a PR move, as well. The US selects its politicians for PR skills.
- pjc50 11y agoWell, yes. This is a common problem in politics but particularly bad in the US: factional morality. People decide who's a "good guy" and a "bad guy" first, then say you should investigate the bad guys and leave the good guys alone. Rather than having an impartial process.
- lisper 11y agoIt's actually even more insidious than that. The behavior of the "good guy" is used to define what is acceptable and vice versa. The most glaring example of this was the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. The Cole was a war ship in foreign waters. You cannot possibly have a more legitimate military target. Nonetheless, the attack on the Cole is invariably labelled as a "terrorist attack" because, well, it was done by Al Qaeda, and whatever Al Qaeda does is, by definition, terrorism. By way of contrast, the United States has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Al Qaeda ever dreamed of (well over 100,000 in Iraq alone) but this isn't terrorism because, well, we're the good guys.
- pjc50 11y agoIt wasn't in Al Quaeda territorial waters, as AQ is not a state. That's why it's terrorism. There must be better examples; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God ?
- lisper 11y ago> It wasn't in Al Quaeda territorial waters What difference does that make? The Iraqi civilians killed by the U.S. were not in U.S. territory. In that respect the situations are exactly equivalent. > AQ is not a state. That's why it's terrorism. That is exactly the kind of rationalization I'm talking about. Why is AQ not a state? Well, one might argue that it's because they don't control any territory. But ISIS controls territory, and yet they are still not considered a state. Palestine controls territory, and they are not considered a state. Why? Simply because the people who currently run the club of human organizations called "states" have decided not to admit them. So it's a totally circular argument: these groups are "not states" and hence their violence is "terrorism" rather then "legitimate" military action simply because some powerful elites have decided not to recognize them as states. And if you want to argue that these groups are not recognized as states because of their "terrorist" actions, there are counter-examples to that too, with Tibet being the poster child. There are also "state sponsors of terrorism", a label whose attachment has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual number of civilians killed. Iran, for example, is a "state sponsor of terrorism" but the U.S. isn't despite the fact that it has killed vastly fewer civilians than the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. decides who is and is not a "state sponsor of terrorism." There are also non-state actors whose actions cause more civilian death and suffering than Al Qaeda but which are nonetheless not considered terrorist organization simply because they are the "good guys": the Catholic Church (via their opposition to family planning and sponsorship of child sexual abuse). The NRA (via their opposition to reasonable controls on guns). I could go on.
- barkingcat 11y agoThis type of behaviour is common in the United States. Weren't there some elected officials in the US who were adamantly anti-gay rights until their own daughters and sons came out as gay? And then they had a change of heart in order to not destroy their kids with the same legislation that they voted for themselves for years and years on end. As flawed humans it's not hard to understand. It never seems to hit home until you experience it yourself. This is a call for getting a more diverse group in positions where they can change legislation and actually make things better for people. I'd welcome the day when the US elects into governing position a convicted criminal who's served their time and is interested in changing the legal system for the better.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoThe thing that bothers me is that they should've already made this connection. That's due to the same precedent the media should be all over: J Edgar Hoover. Hoover pushed for greater power for FBI, including surveillance, to combat the communist threat. They encouraged people everywhere to tip them off with innocent people often being harassed. Sound familiar post-9/11? Anyway, Hoover decided surveillance power had a better use: digging up dirt on politicians, media people, judges, whoever. This was back when FBI agents had to physically tap phone wires or sit outside your house. Nonetheless, with very little capabilities, he got enough dirt to blackmail Congress into increasing his power and reign for decades. So, one person already took control of Congress via unlawful use of surveillance. Now, we have an agency that can spy on everyone and everything simultaneously with algorithms looking for juiciest tidbits? And Congress doesn't see how this could be bad for them? Even one rogue group with unlogged access to the collection tech could get enough dirt on key committees probably in weeks to months. Whole NSA could be honest except them and still a huge threat to democracy. This is why I argue that we need to push Congress and business elites to roll back government surveillance while constantly reminding them of J Edgar Hoover precedent. I was sure they'd be spying on at least some of Congress. Articles like this only make our claims stronger. Keep asking them if they want to be working for NSA employees with copies of incriminating messages, photos, or meetups? Or do they want to keep their power over their own fiefdoms? Gotta be in their self-interest and risks they understand. Like blackmail and how dots can be connected between them and lobbyists financiers.
- Sharlin 11y agoOf course, one possibility is that they already are blackmailing everybody...
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI agree. I brought it up on Schneier's blog. Particularly, all the things that pass quickly and without a hint of discussion. So we need a strategy to counter that, too.
- CaptSpify 11y ago"Those that don't understand history blah blah blah". And that's why we have things like The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. They are a focal point for us to say "Oh right, we were getting a bit emotional and got carried away. We should probably scale this back a bit."
- guelo 11y agoMy conclusion is that Israel is not our "friend", whatever the hell that means. It is an aggressive powerful state willing to use that power without regard to any international norms. And it has irreparably corrupted our political systems to serve its own needs. If the surveillance state has any purpose, keeping an eye on Israel should be a top priority.
- relkor 11y agoI would encourage you to examine the role of Israel as America's lightening rod. It is my personal belief that America's leadership is very aware of the usefulness of Israel and at least sometimes postures accordingly.
- guelo 11y agoA lightning rod for what? Terrorism blowback?
- fit2rule 11y agoHow to maintain a fascist state and get away with it while doping your children into oblivion.
- relkor 11y agoYes, Notice how the US strings along the Palestine problem, while not really moving forward towards a resolution, while at the same time Israel does not move in with their superior military and kill all belligerents. It is useful for the anger of the middle east to be concentrated at Israel first, and the US bribes and strong arms Israel into this role.
- junto 11y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but the underlying concept of a democracy is to vote for one person to represent you in congress. So why is it that these people only stand up for the rest of us when they themselves are directly and personally affected? Somewhere along the line the word representative has lost its meaning. They forget that they represent every single person in their state, not just the ones that voted for them. They are a single voice echoing the voices of everyone they represent. They are sadly tied conceptually to their political peers, rather than those they represent. They should be fighting for us, not against us.
- Laaw 11y agoYou're incorrect on what a democracy is; what you've described is a republic. Democracy isn't a system of government. Anarchy is a system of government that implements a direct vote on all issues.
- Animats 11y agoThe intelligence community was doing its job. They were monitoring the actions of foreign agents trying to secretly influence Government policy. The intel community is supposed to be doing that. That's basic counterintelligence - it's how you catch spies.
- avmich 11y agoOh c'mon. Do you understand the issue of privacy at all? The whole problem is that when you want for any cost to spy, you'll step on your shoes with privacy infringements. And then the higher order goal - the one you do the spying for - gets compromised.