19 ms·

New CIA Chief to Gladly Spy on Americans, Even If Using Info Hacked by Russians

171 points by type0 10y ago

willvarfar 10y ago
Playing devils advocate, but if Russia warns the US about another Boston bomber Tsarnaev -alike, should the citizenship of the suspect or the source of the intelligence affect the investigation? I would imagine that if Pompeo had used such a hypothetical scenario in answering it would have been harder for a senator to vote against him.
- eis 10y ago
  I'm not an american citizen but I was under the impression that the CIA was foreign intelligence and local threats are the responsibility of other departments like the FBI which can legally spy on american citizens (following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants). It's not like the russians would tell the US government about a threat and the US government would throw the arms in the air and say "Well, shit. He's a US citizen, can't do anything then!"
  - pc86 10y ago
    > following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants If only
  - vanattab 10y ago
    This more or less used to be true. But then Obama,in his last days in office, gave virtually all US law enforcement agencies unfettered access to nsa/Cia data. But you know he freed Chelsea Manning so all is good right?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Cuuugi 10y ago
    Semi-Relevant, but they aren't supposed to kill American citizens either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    - JohnStrange 10y ago
      However, killing non-American citizens with drone strikes is apparently A-Okay.
croon 10y ago
It's impossible to have a conversation about these appointees without it sounding like hyperbole, because it's on its face too ridiculous. But I guess appointing foxes to govern henhouses at least has the upside of being honest regarding its purpose.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  Yes, it's honest for them to say, "we're scared of terrorists," but they're not also self-aware enough of the ramifications of mass surveillance, so they can't be honest about that. And motivated reasoning explains why they're not likely to become aware of it; They're not incentivized to. Of the many problems mass surveillance brings, the least hyperbolic one I see pending is corporate leverage to wrest private resources like farmland, home ownership, water, vehicle and computer ownership away from individuals. With their complete economic models of the citizenship, banks and businesses can ensure through operating costs, fees, interest rates, etc. that we never gain complete control of our own resources, that we'll always have to be working for the system in the way it wants. If we're run as a completely data-driven entity with greedy power holders choosing the parameters, the only lucky ones who can opt out are the clever who are able to expand the surveillance economy. This violates the will of the Constitutional pursuit of happiness. We should be free to live independently, happily and simply from a modest amount of hard work without getting drawn into the black hole of the surveillance economy.
  - drinkjuice 10y ago
    As horrid as that is, I think it could go way beyond it even. In some form or other, we need privacy not "just because", but because it's vitally important to become and be a person. Not (just) to do evil things without others knowing, but because a mass is not a group of persons, it's just a mass. Everybody needs to be alone sometimes, everybody needs to be able to be alone, at least I think so; and consciously or subconsciously, known or not, the fact of everything being recorded and look at and/or datamined to hell and back, forever, to be twisted into new narratives completely out of the reach of the person living their life, might have very drastic effects, in the long run. We "killed God" and Nietzsche asked if we have even the faintest idea of what that implies, and I feel regardless of that, killing man is already well underway, with a similar sleepwalking quality to it. It might start with garden variety rush tyranny and mass murder, but maybe it goes way deeper than that, deeper than even AI or automation, wiping personhood (for lack of a better way to put it) out at the root with nobody even feeling it. We get used to everything, why not get used to regressing to individual mindlessness for the sake of some ill-defined greater good of some ill-defined greater entity? Crazier things have happened.
JohnStrange 10y ago
Ah... politics again. I won't comment on this article, but it would be nice if US politicians and part of the general public would start realizing that moral rules and rights do not just exist for Americans only. NSA spying on Americans == how despicable! NSA spying on anyone else without any oversight or justification == quite alright, who cares American life's lost (usually means US soldiers killed) == what a tragedy! non-American lifes lost, whether civilians or soldiers == who gives a fuck Really, with that attitude you don't have to wonder when people outside the US consider US actions and talk with, say, hesitation. Other countries do not generally talk that way about American lifes or spying on the American general public. You've got a P&R problem at least since Bush junior started kidnapping and torturing people from other countries in other countries. And, to be honest, slogans like "America first" also don't help much for improving the international reputation. "France first" or "America last" also don't sound very reasonable or friendly, do they? Now you can vote me down. :-)
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  And let's not forget to include Obama as someone who doesn't care about spying on communication outside of US...even Senator Obama supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 2008 amendments: https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/blogtalk-obamas-fisa-vote/ https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/blogtalk-obam...
- pc86 10y ago
  > NSA spying on Americans == how despicable! > NSA spying on anyone else without any oversight or justification == quite alright, who cares A more accurate analogy would be: Clandestine intelligence service spying on US citizens in direct violation of federal law == despicable Clandestine intelligence service spying on non-US citizens == literally the entire point of the Agency You're spot on with the other point, however I'll just say that I would expect American leaders to place a higher priority on protecting American lives. That's also their job.
  - b6 10y ago
    > Clandestine intelligence service spying on non-US citizens == literally the entire point of the Agency The problem I have with this is, it sounds like "Yes, of course the zombies are eating your brains -- that's exactly what zombies are supposed to do. What's the problem?"
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
Sad thing is a lot of Democrats are collaborators...I worry that democrats can't put up a serious resistance necessary to protect civil liberties: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall-in-line-behind-trump-cia-pick-who-left-door-open-to-torture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall... also the following statement is false, because he was confirmed as of today: "However, the Senate blocked Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee for CIA."
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  A lot of Democrats were the primary perpetrators no more than a week ago. I've gotten sick of this 8 year cycle in which everyone flips their stance on whether or not a President who is for the most part doing the same things as the one before him is a bad guy or not. It's nice to have the anti-war left back, but I'll miss the small-government conservatives. My guess is the Patriot Act will stick around again but Democrats will be back to hating it.
  - jbooth 10y ago
    I think one could say that this isn't just another typical 8 year cycle. As far as "primary perpetrators a week ago", I mean I'd have preferred that Obama do more to protect civil liberties but he is the guy who pardoned Chelsea Manning, tried to close Gitmo, and god knows what else he pushed back against. Running the executive branch means that by default you're the primary perpetrator, but there are degrees of perpetrating here.
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      Yes, I also would have rather he pushed back instead of literally signing an executive order this month allowing freer information sharing between agencies, some of which were granted all sorts of "emergency" powers in laws he renewed. * commuted sentence - still in jail, was in jail this whole time, still no accountability that I see for things leaked by Manning and Snowden, and alarmingly high collateral damage rates in drone killings. Yeah, yeah, so different from Bush. Definitely not another typical 8 year cycle. Everyone's acting like Trump suddenly has unlimited power to be a tyrant while Obama couldn't do things like this just because those mean old white men got in his way. He expanded executive power plenty and didn't use it to keep very many campaign promises.
reverend_gonzo 10y ago
The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely. Even if we win one fight, it's going to be a constant battle against powers who do want more and better surveillance, and the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper. The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally. While we shouldn't stop the first fight, we really should be focusing on the second one.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Frankly it went bye bye with the fall of the wall. Back then they needed to appear to be better than the soviets, and thus upheld the laws on privacy. But now there is no comparative low water mark, and whats worse they now have one or more snitch in every home. And that is compromised computers. Every phone, every laptop, and soon enough every IOT device, will be a potential snitch on our activities. And where they earlier needed large staffs to listen, watch, and take notes, they can now automatically transcribe every conversation with timestamps down to the second. And soon enough they can even do it with video (if not already). Keep in mind that this is all tech that the likes of Google and Amazon is working on to provide more services for us all...
- baybal2 10y ago
  >The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely. Well, if not other legal means left, you have other options. You happy Americans can buy guns legally, and "right to revolution" is pretty much written in your constitution.
  - awinder 10y ago
    It honestly shocks me when people think that the individual still has this much power. The power of government has changed a bit since the 1700s, unless people plan of acquiring a large fleet of planes and tanks, this is just farsical.
    - mooseburger 10y ago
jbattle 10y ago
I've started to think there are only two ways to impact government policy: - Have hundreds of millions or billions to spend on lobbying and otherwise playing the regulatory capture game - Create a reasonable sized public following of single-issue voters As others have said, this is a battle that comes up over and over and over. Unless there are voters willing to go nuclear (cross party lines, support insurgent challenges to incumbents) these rights are precarious.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  It doesn't help to cross party lines if both are trying to seize the power.
jkelsey 10y ago
If you live in California and you are at all concerned about this, you must call Sen. Feinstein's offices and tell her staff that you oppose the Senator's vote to confirm Pompeo and will work to support her opposition in the 2018 midterms (she is up for re-election). http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-dc http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-...?
- snarfy 10y ago
  For her to lose means a Republican wins. Never gonna happen in California.
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    That's not necessarily true given how the jungle primary system works. Also I have my doubts that she will run for re-election. Garcetti will probably take a shot.
  - digikata 10y ago
    For the CA senate election in 2016, two Democrats ended up running against each other in the general election as the outcome of the open primary. So for Feinstein to lose it doesn't guarantee that at all.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  You mean this Feinstein ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinstein-defends-nsa-data-collection https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinste... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-feinstein-release-their-anti-encryption-bill-more-ridiculous-than-expected.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-...
  - jkelsey 10y ago
    Yes that Feinstein. Call her office and exert political pressure. All we do is complain on the Internet about it, then wonder why our politicians don't listen to us. Feinstein doesn't read Hacker News.
SEJeff 10y ago
Reminder folks, this is where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has your back. Look at their Surveillance Self Defense kit for ways to defend against overzealous wiretapping. https://ssd.eff.org https://ssd.eff.org
gojiberry 10y ago
They are giving Count Trump leskin everything that he needs to fail fast.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tps5 10y ago
The CIA is, very specifically, not allowed to spy on American citizens.
wopwopwop 10y ago
Like Germany condemning Snowden, but having no problem using his leaks in their investigation of the NSA Bundestag hacking. It's not a post-truth world, it's a post-hypocrisy world.

171 points by type0 10y ago

Playing devils advocate, but if Russia warns the US about another Boston bomber Tsarnaev -alike, should the citizenship of the suspect or the source of the intelligence affect the investigation? I would imagine that if Pompeo had used such a hypothetical scenario in answering it would have been harder for a senator to vote against him.

eis 10y ago
I'm not an american citizen but I was under the impression that the CIA was foreign intelligence and local threats are the responsibility of other departments like the FBI which can legally spy on american citizens (following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants). It's not like the russians would tell the US government about a threat and the US government would throw the arms in the air and say "Well, shit. He's a US citizen, can't do anything then!"
- pc86 10y ago
  > following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants If only
- vanattab 10y ago
  This more or less used to be true. But then Obama,in his last days in office, gave virtually all US law enforcement agencies unfettered access to nsa/Cia data. But you know he freed Chelsea Manning so all is good right?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Cuuugi 10y ago
  Semi-Relevant, but they aren't supposed to kill American citizens either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
  - JohnStrange 10y ago
    However, killing non-American citizens with drone strikes is apparently A-Okay.

croon 10y ago

It's impossible to have a conversation about these appointees without it sounding like hyperbole, because it's on its face too ridiculous. But I guess appointing foxes to govern henhouses at least has the upside of being honest regarding its purpose.

chillingeffect 10y ago
Yes, it's honest for them to say, "we're scared of terrorists," but they're not also self-aware enough of the ramifications of mass surveillance, so they can't be honest about that. And motivated reasoning explains why they're not likely to become aware of it; They're not incentivized to. Of the many problems mass surveillance brings, the least hyperbolic one I see pending is corporate leverage to wrest private resources like farmland, home ownership, water, vehicle and computer ownership away from individuals. With their complete economic models of the citizenship, banks and businesses can ensure through operating costs, fees, interest rates, etc. that we never gain complete control of our own resources, that we'll always have to be working for the system in the way it wants. If we're run as a completely data-driven entity with greedy power holders choosing the parameters, the only lucky ones who can opt out are the clever who are able to expand the surveillance economy. This violates the will of the Constitutional pursuit of happiness. We should be free to live independently, happily and simply from a modest amount of hard work without getting drawn into the black hole of the surveillance economy.
- drinkjuice 10y ago
  As horrid as that is, I think it could go way beyond it even. In some form or other, we need privacy not "just because", but because it's vitally important to become and be a person. Not (just) to do evil things without others knowing, but because a mass is not a group of persons, it's just a mass. Everybody needs to be alone sometimes, everybody needs to be able to be alone, at least I think so; and consciously or subconsciously, known or not, the fact of everything being recorded and look at and/or datamined to hell and back, forever, to be twisted into new narratives completely out of the reach of the person living their life, might have very drastic effects, in the long run. We "killed God" and Nietzsche asked if we have even the faintest idea of what that implies, and I feel regardless of that, killing man is already well underway, with a similar sleepwalking quality to it. It might start with garden variety rush tyranny and mass murder, but maybe it goes way deeper than that, deeper than even AI or automation, wiping personhood (for lack of a better way to put it) out at the root with nobody even feeling it. We get used to everything, why not get used to regressing to individual mindlessness for the sake of some ill-defined greater good of some ill-defined greater entity? Crazier things have happened.

JohnStrange 10y ago

Ah... politics again. I won't comment on this article, but it would be nice if US politicians and part of the general public would start realizing that moral rules and rights do not just exist for Americans only. NSA spying on Americans == how despicable! NSA spying on anyone else without any oversight or justification == quite alright, who cares American life's lost (usually means US soldiers killed) == what a tragedy! non-American lifes lost, whether civilians or soldiers == who gives a fuck Really, with that attitude you don't have to wonder when people outside the US consider US actions and talk with, say, hesitation. Other countries do not generally talk that way about American lifes or spying on the American general public. You've got a P&R problem at least since Bush junior started kidnapping and torturing people from other countries in other countries. And, to be honest, slogans like "America first" also don't help much for improving the international reputation. "France first" or "America last" also don't sound very reasonable or friendly, do they? Now you can vote me down. :-)

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
And let's not forget to include Obama as someone who doesn't care about spying on communication outside of US...even Senator Obama supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 2008 amendments: https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/blogtalk-obamas-fisa-vote/ https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/blogtalk-obam...
pc86 10y ago
> NSA spying on Americans == how despicable! > NSA spying on anyone else without any oversight or justification == quite alright, who cares A more accurate analogy would be: Clandestine intelligence service spying on US citizens in direct violation of federal law == despicable Clandestine intelligence service spying on non-US citizens == literally the entire point of the Agency You're spot on with the other point, however I'll just say that I would expect American leaders to place a higher priority on protecting American lives. That's also their job.
- b6 10y ago
  > Clandestine intelligence service spying on non-US citizens == literally the entire point of the Agency The problem I have with this is, it sounds like "Yes, of course the zombies are eating your brains -- that's exactly what zombies are supposed to do. What's the problem?"

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

Sad thing is a lot of Democrats are collaborators...I worry that democrats can't put up a serious resistance necessary to protect civil liberties: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall-in-line-behind-trump-cia-pick-who-left-door-open-to-torture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall... also the following statement is false, because he was confirmed as of today: "However, the Senate blocked Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee for CIA."

TallGuyShort 10y ago
A lot of Democrats were the primary perpetrators no more than a week ago. I've gotten sick of this 8 year cycle in which everyone flips their stance on whether or not a President who is for the most part doing the same things as the one before him is a bad guy or not. It's nice to have the anti-war left back, but I'll miss the small-government conservatives. My guess is the Patriot Act will stick around again but Democrats will be back to hating it.
- jbooth 10y ago
  I think one could say that this isn't just another typical 8 year cycle. As far as "primary perpetrators a week ago", I mean I'd have preferred that Obama do more to protect civil liberties but he is the guy who pardoned Chelsea Manning, tried to close Gitmo, and god knows what else he pushed back against. Running the executive branch means that by default you're the primary perpetrator, but there are degrees of perpetrating here.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    Yes, I also would have rather he pushed back instead of literally signing an executive order this month allowing freer information sharing between agencies, some of which were granted all sorts of "emergency" powers in laws he renewed. * commuted sentence - still in jail, was in jail this whole time, still no accountability that I see for things leaked by Manning and Snowden, and alarmingly high collateral damage rates in drone killings. Yeah, yeah, so different from Bush. Definitely not another typical 8 year cycle. Everyone's acting like Trump suddenly has unlimited power to be a tyrant while Obama couldn't do things like this just because those mean old white men got in his way. He expanded executive power plenty and didn't use it to keep very many campaign promises.

reverend_gonzo 10y ago

The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely. Even if we win one fight, it's going to be a constant battle against powers who do want more and better surveillance, and the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper. The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally. While we shouldn't stop the first fight, we really should be focusing on the second one.

digi_owl 10y ago
Frankly it went bye bye with the fall of the wall. Back then they needed to appear to be better than the soviets, and thus upheld the laws on privacy. But now there is no comparative low water mark, and whats worse they now have one or more snitch in every home. And that is compromised computers. Every phone, every laptop, and soon enough every IOT device, will be a potential snitch on our activities. And where they earlier needed large staffs to listen, watch, and take notes, they can now automatically transcribe every conversation with timestamps down to the second. And soon enough they can even do it with video (if not already). Keep in mind that this is all tech that the likes of Google and Amazon is working on to provide more services for us all...
baybal2 10y ago
>The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely. Well, if not other legal means left, you have other options. You happy Americans can buy guns legally, and "right to revolution" is pretty much written in your constitution.
- awinder 10y ago
  It honestly shocks me when people think that the individual still has this much power. The power of government has changed a bit since the 1700s, unless people plan of acquiring a large fleet of planes and tanks, this is just farsical.
  - mooseburger 10y ago

jbattle 10y ago

I've started to think there are only two ways to impact government policy: - Have hundreds of millions or billions to spend on lobbying and otherwise playing the regulatory capture game - Create a reasonable sized public following of single-issue voters As others have said, this is a battle that comes up over and over and over. Unless there are voters willing to go nuclear (cross party lines, support insurgent challenges to incumbents) these rights are precarious.

throwaway91111 10y ago
It doesn't help to cross party lines if both are trying to seize the power.

jkelsey 10y ago

If you live in California and you are at all concerned about this, you must call Sen. Feinstein's offices and tell her staff that you oppose the Senator's vote to confirm Pompeo and will work to support her opposition in the 2018 midterms (she is up for re-election). http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-dc http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-...?

snarfy 10y ago
For her to lose means a Republican wins. Never gonna happen in California.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  That's not necessarily true given how the jungle primary system works. Also I have my doubts that she will run for re-election. Garcetti will probably take a shot.
- digikata 10y ago
  For the CA senate election in 2016, two Democrats ended up running against each other in the general election as the outcome of the open primary. So for Feinstein to lose it doesn't guarantee that at all.
ekianjo 10y ago
You mean this Feinstein ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinstein-defends-nsa-data-collection https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinste... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-feinstein-release-their-anti-encryption-bill-more-ridiculous-than-expected.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-...
- jkelsey 10y ago
  Yes that Feinstein. Call her office and exert political pressure. All we do is complain on the Internet about it, then wonder why our politicians don't listen to us. Feinstein doesn't read Hacker News.

SEJeff 10y ago

Reminder folks, this is where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has your back. Look at their Surveillance Self Defense kit for ways to defend against overzealous wiretapping. https://ssd.eff.org https://ssd.eff.org

gojiberry 10y ago

They are giving Count Trump leskin everything that he needs to fail fast.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tps5 10y ago

The CIA is, very specifically, not allowed to spy on American citizens.

wopwopwop 10y ago

Like Germany condemning Snowden, but having no problem using his leaks in their investigation of the NSA Bundestag hacking. It's not a post-truth world, it's a post-hypocrisy world.