10 ms·

Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA

344 points by Libertatea 13y ago

mikegioia 13y ago
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.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  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.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    > we don't know if the security services blackmail politicians, and other influential or powerful people. It doesn't need to be so one-sided, some Senate and House members may in fact be benefiting greatly from the NSA's spying (eg: manipulating the stock market by using their exclusive access to private information), and in exchange the NSA continues their work with impunity and without oversight. It's a symbiotic relationship where they're benefiting from each-other.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      Very good point. Carrot and stick. Even more reason to try to secure more openness.
    - Maxious 13y ago
      > A 2004 study found that stock sales and purchases by Senators outperformed the market by 12.3% per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading_by_members_of_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading...
      - Oculus 13y ago
        You forgot to add the [citation needed] at the end of that sentence.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    We know exactly how they are being blackmailed: if they don't cooperate, they will be outed as unpatriotic and anti-American via the media, and their political careers will be destroyed as their peers duck for cover. The threat is so clear and obvious it never needs to be expressed. That's what the American doctrine of "patriotism" is all about, and it will remain that way until Americans start recognizing this is not just a word describing the normal love for ones own country most people around the world share, but an extremist ideology aimed at silencing dissent and enforcing conformity.
  - MisterWebz 13y ago
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
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")
techsupporter 13y ago
"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.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  The Speech and Debate clause: "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The House Intelligence Committee is part of the house, so they are allowed to penalize Congressmen for speech.
  - techsupporter 13y ago
    You're right, though I wasn't thinking of penalties outside of Congress. Congress can only go so far as to expel a member, right, or can they put a sitting Representative up for impeachment? Assuming they can, I suspect the fallout from that would be...impressive.
    - sseveran 13y ago
      More likely is that the party leadership would not let them on any of the important committees. Or they may via backchannels fund a primary challenger.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
northwest 13y ago
Democracy in full effect. > "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.
mtgx 13y ago
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. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled-due-to-house-dems-meeting-with-obama/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled...
danenania 13y ago
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.
- future_grad 13y ago
  > is just a pure and obvious bluff. Provide proof?
- sb057 13y ago
  Well, the NSA allegedly wiretapped Obama when he was running for senator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
- ihsw 13y ago
  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.
  - ohyes 13y ago
    Vote the bums out and defund the NSA. It's clear no one on the intelligence committee has been doing their job, so let's start there. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members
coldcode 13y ago
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.
julianozen 13y ago
The other problem with congressional oversite is what happened during the SOPA hearings. Congress is vaguely qualified to assess data collection techniques.
w_t_payne 13y ago
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?
Khaine 13y ago
America truly is the land of the free
uptown 13y ago
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.
ferdo 13y ago
“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.” ― Lysander Spooner
codex 13y ago
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.
bazillion 13y ago
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_Intelligence 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?
Shivetya 13y ago
two words: stop funding Simple as that. If Congress is truly serious about this, they should strip the NSA of its funding.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Which means are elected officials are not in charge. I wonder who is.

344 points by Libertatea 13y ago

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.

alan_cx 13y ago
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.
- ihsw 13y ago
  > we don't know if the security services blackmail politicians, and other influential or powerful people. It doesn't need to be so one-sided, some Senate and House members may in fact be benefiting greatly from the NSA's spying (eg: manipulating the stock market by using their exclusive access to private information), and in exchange the NSA continues their work with impunity and without oversight. It's a symbiotic relationship where they're benefiting from each-other.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Very good point. Carrot and stick. Even more reason to try to secure more openness.
  - Maxious 13y ago
    > A 2004 study found that stock sales and purchases by Senators outperformed the market by 12.3% per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading_by_members_of_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading...
    - Oculus 13y ago
      You forgot to add the [citation needed] at the end of that sentence.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  We know exactly how they are being blackmailed: if they don't cooperate, they will be outed as unpatriotic and anti-American via the media, and their political careers will be destroyed as their peers duck for cover. The threat is so clear and obvious it never needs to be expressed. That's what the American doctrine of "patriotism" is all about, and it will remain that way until Americans start recognizing this is not just a word describing the normal love for ones own country most people around the world share, but an extremist ideology aimed at silencing dissent and enforcing conformity.
- MisterWebz 13y ago

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

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")

techsupporter 13y ago

"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.

gizmo686 13y ago
The Speech and Debate clause: "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The House Intelligence Committee is part of the house, so they are allowed to penalize Congressmen for speech.
- techsupporter 13y ago
  You're right, though I wasn't thinking of penalties outside of Congress. Congress can only go so far as to expel a member, right, or can they put a sitting Representative up for impeachment? Assuming they can, I suspect the fallout from that would be...impressive.
  - sseveran 13y ago
    More likely is that the party leadership would not let them on any of the important committees. Or they may via backchannels fund a primary challenger.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

northwest 13y ago

Democracy in full effect. > "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.

mtgx 13y ago

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. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled-due-to-house-dems-meeting-with-obama/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled...

danenania 13y ago

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.

future_grad 13y ago
> is just a pure and obvious bluff. Provide proof?
sb057 13y ago
Well, the NSA allegedly wiretapped Obama when he was running for senator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
ihsw 13y ago
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.
- ohyes 13y ago
  Vote the bums out and defund the NSA. It's clear no one on the intelligence committee has been doing their job, so let's start there. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members

coldcode 13y ago

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.

julianozen 13y ago

The other problem with congressional oversite is what happened during the SOPA hearings. Congress is vaguely qualified to assess data collection techniques.

w_t_payne 13y ago

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?

Khaine 13y ago

America truly is the land of the free

uptown 13y ago

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.

ferdo 13y ago

“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.” ― Lysander Spooner

codex 13y ago

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.

bazillion 13y ago

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_Intelligence 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?

Shivetya 13y ago

two words: stop funding Simple as that. If Congress is truly serious about this, they should strip the NSA of its funding.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Which means are elected officials are not in charge. I wonder who is.