4 ms·

I'm delighted to see Congress taking a stand for's right here, and I hope politicians finally realised they do have a personal stake in the matter. They do hav

by prebrov 11y ago

I'm delighted to see Congress taking a stand for's right here, and I hope politicians finally realised they do have a personal stake in the matter. They do have secrets, like most of us and effects of revealing these secrets would have far worse consequences for them and their careers than for most "ordinary citizens", which makes them high-profile targets. Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle. Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction. I can see how "ordinary people" would think they "aren't important enough" when it comes to surveillance, but it amazes me that ambitious politicians wouldn't see themselves as "important enough".

jowiar 11y ago
There's a reason that video rentals are among the more well-legally-protected bits of personal information...
jessaustin 11y ago
Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction. This has likely happened already with NSA. FBI are jealous because NSA don't share. Congress already know what a pain it is to deal with NSA; they're not eager to create another effectively ungovernable agency.
- kbenson 11y ago
  If you want to go all the way down that rabbit hole, the NSA could be leveraging its power over politicians to prevent the FBI from gaining power, since power of this sort is relative, not absolute (the FBI's gain would be the NSA's loss). To be clear, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
  - adventured 11y ago
    It's very well known historically that these agencies have been fighting with each other since their originations. They fight each other over intel, budgets, turf, governance, talent, technology, etc. I don't think there's anything to subscribe to or not. It's established fact, widely written about for decades.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I was more referring to the NSA leveraging power over our congressmen and senators due to their knowledge of secrets those politicians may not want exposed. That's a very dangerous game to play, and all it takes is one person not willing to play for it to all come tumbling down for the NSA. So, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
      - mike_hearn 11y ago
        I'm skeptical that the NSA would do that so explicitly (although given that Snowden's entire set of revelations consisted of "they wouldn't do that ..... oh they did" perhaps I should have less confidence). I think a far more plausible and subtle form of mental pressure is simply manipulating secrecy and technical bullshit. You don't have to know a Congressman's porn preference to manipulate him if you can instead say, "we are tracking dangerous terrorists and if you don't do exactly what we want, they will win and it'd be an awful shame if an angry analyst leaked to the press the fact that YOU, CONGRESSMAN JONES, prevented us from doing our jobs". Whether the terrorists really exist or not doesn't matter when you are effectively unauditable, and can easily imply that anyone who gets in your way is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents.
        pdkl95 11y ago
        That's exactly it, but it's even simpler than that; when you control the reports that the political leaders are relying on for information, you control the set of options they can select from. Some things never get reported, others get reported such that there is an "obvious correct" choice. Coercive measures are possible, but they shouldn't be necessary in most cases. Jacob Appelbaum describes this process very well in an interview[1] where talks about the time the CSE[2] tried to recruit him. It's hilarious... and scary for several reasons, including the suggestion that the CSE has to get NSA approval for the people they hire. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805 [2] Communications Security Establishment (Canadian SIGINT agency)
iamdave 11y ago
Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle. I think part of this might be that members of Congress remember the news breaking that the NSA and CIA were spying even on American allies like Chancellor Angela Merkel and got a taste of "is nothing safe?" in their mouths. So yeah, I'm with you on that nugget.

by prebrov 11y ago

jowiar 11y ago

There's a reason that video rentals are among the more well-legally-protected bits of personal information...

jessaustin 11y ago

Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction. This has likely happened already with NSA. FBI are jealous because NSA don't share. Congress already know what a pain it is to deal with NSA; they're not eager to create another effectively ungovernable agency.

kbenson 11y ago
If you want to go all the way down that rabbit hole, the NSA could be leveraging its power over politicians to prevent the FBI from gaining power, since power of this sort is relative, not absolute (the FBI's gain would be the NSA's loss). To be clear, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
- adventured 11y ago
  It's very well known historically that these agencies have been fighting with each other since their originations. They fight each other over intel, budgets, turf, governance, talent, technology, etc. I don't think there's anything to subscribe to or not. It's established fact, widely written about for decades.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I was more referring to the NSA leveraging power over our congressmen and senators due to their knowledge of secrets those politicians may not want exposed. That's a very dangerous game to play, and all it takes is one person not willing to play for it to all come tumbling down for the NSA. So, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      I'm skeptical that the NSA would do that so explicitly (although given that Snowden's entire set of revelations consisted of "they wouldn't do that ..... oh they did" perhaps I should have less confidence). I think a far more plausible and subtle form of mental pressure is simply manipulating secrecy and technical bullshit. You don't have to know a Congressman's porn preference to manipulate him if you can instead say, "we are tracking dangerous terrorists and if you don't do exactly what we want, they will win and it'd be an awful shame if an angry analyst leaked to the press the fact that YOU, CONGRESSMAN JONES, prevented us from doing our jobs". Whether the terrorists really exist or not doesn't matter when you are effectively unauditable, and can easily imply that anyone who gets in your way is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents.
      - pdkl95 11y ago
        That's exactly it, but it's even simpler than that; when you control the reports that the political leaders are relying on for information, you control the set of options they can select from. Some things never get reported, others get reported such that there is an "obvious correct" choice. Coercive measures are possible, but they shouldn't be necessary in most cases. Jacob Appelbaum describes this process very well in an interview[1] where talks about the time the CSE[2] tried to recruit him. It's hilarious... and scary for several reasons, including the suggestion that the CSE has to get NSA approval for the people they hire. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805 [2] Communications Security Establishment (Canadian SIGINT agency)

iamdave 11y ago

Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle. I think part of this might be that members of Congress remember the news breaking that the NSA and CIA were spying even on American allies like Chancellor Angela Merkel and got a taste of "is nothing safe?" in their mouths. So yeah, I'm with you on that nugget.