7 ms·

Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

158 points by joshfraser 13y ago

CWuestefeld 13y ago
I'm not sure why this particular question is relevant. It seems to assume that members of Congress should be better protected in their privacy than the rest of us. But I submit that the opposite is true: they should be scrutinized to a much greater degree, and (nearly) everything they do in their office should be an open book to us.
ProAm 13y ago
Uhh of course they do. Why would they be exempt? If anything they are a legitimate target for fears of compromising national security.
- godgod 13y ago
  congress legit targets? when the system can't trust someone, the system can not be trusted.
- saraid216 13y ago
  The goal is to have an answer on record.
  - ProAm 13y ago
    It's pretty clear they do not care about being honest on record. Nor do we do anything about it when we find them in a lie.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      I said the point was to have an answer on record. The point is not to have the truth on record; that has never been useful.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        So then, how is having an answer on record going to be useful?
        saraid216 13y ago
        If the answer is yes, > Acknowledgement that it has collected the communications records of American lawmakers and other officials is likely to make it harder for the NSA to argue that it needs such broad collection powers to defend against terrorism. If the answer is no, > The letter’s authors include surveillance skeptics like Sensenbrenner as well as those who voted against an earlier curtailment of NSA authorities, like Franks and Issa, the chairman of the House oversight committee. > “There can be no disagreement, however, on the basic premise that congressional witnesses must answer truthfully,” read the letter, which requested a reply by 10 January.
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        You are saying that an answer of "no" is just not credible. I agree with that.
        saraid216 13y ago
        That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        > I'm saying that getting a lie on record But you are certain that it would be a lie? Then it is implicit in this that the "no" is not credible. You're not being very clear.
        saraid216 13y ago
        What would you like me to clarify? If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?
- walshemj 13y ago
  Well the soviet sleepers where trying to make Friends and contacts with people in government so if a congressman or Senator had an "aide" like "Katia" Zatuliveter an Aide to the MP for Portsmouth who is on the defense committee I bet the FBI counter espionage guys would be interested And in the Past MI5 did catch a US diplomat working for the nazi's s well as catching an MP spying for the opposition John Stone House for the STB.
- Torgo 13y ago
  Congress can fuck up the country far more effectively than terrorism. See: Congress' response to terrorism. The scrutiny on them should be ENORMOUS but instead it is exactly the reverse, they are using a billions-dollar world eavesdropping device to parallel-construction convict petty pot dealers.
  - dwaltrip 13y ago
    Yes but I don't think closed door NSA style surveillance of congress people would be helpful. Government open data programs? Probably a better direction.
- genwin 13y ago
  They are also a target so that the head of the NSA can effectively control the country.
leeoniya 13y ago
"...if the NSA has spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials" It depends on your definitions of "has", "spied", "spying", "currently", "elected" and "members". So the answer is, "No".
- drdeadringer 13y ago
  I find it very depressing that semantics and definitions of fairly common-sense words are at the center of this particular set of weaseling.
  - wil421 13y ago
    Lawyer talk and double speak. Bill Clinton got away with the Monica comment about sex and so will the next bunch about something different.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      If you call impeachment getting away with it. Side note: his predecessor had a long-time mistress that was well known to beltway insiders. The Right changed the rules once they were out of power.
      - wil421 13y ago
        Times have changed its no longer acceptable to have a mistress no matter what position you're in.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Semantics and definitions are what the law is :) In this case, as the parent points out, this is entirely the wrong way to ask the question. You don't ask them whether they did X, you ask them what information they have, and then for each piece of information, how was it acquired.
  - SDMattG 13y ago
    It is so incredibly infuriating...and by the people who are supposed to be looking out for us.
2bluesc 13y ago
This result of this should be interesting.
gojomo 13y ago
Only for training purposes, with recordings promptly destroyed! See from 1995 (!): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-12/news/1995346001_1_nsa-eavesdropping-listening-national-security-agency http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-12/news/1995346001_... FTA: "We listened to all the calls in and out of Washington," says one former NSA linguist, recalling a class at the Warrenton Training Center, a CIA communications school on a Virginia hilltop. "We'd listen to senators, representatives, government agencies, housewives talking to their lovers."
- f_salmon 13y ago
  Also, for those who have missed it: Obama was being surveilled as well, before being elected: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/ http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-... Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet (if you compare his promises and reality, it sure looks like it). And that would then mean that no future President would be able to start limiting the growing corruption, with the NSA in power.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet Effectively? Nobody gets the backing of a major party for his nomination, donations, etc, without being thorougly screened and vetoed that they'll "do the right thing" to continue supporting several interests (partisan, financial, political, etc). It's not like parties do all this gerrymandering and political games to then allow some loose canon President to realy change the system. In that sense, they are all puppets, even without surveillance coming into play.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      The difference is that when the puppetmasters are two political parties in competition to each other, they have adapt their positions to popular opinion or else their puppets loose power and become worthless. When the puppetmasters are the NSA, then they do not need to adapt their posistions, because regardless of the election, they still have puppets.
scottmcleod 13y ago
Uhh duh? Can't have those closest to you acting up..
sethbannon 13y ago
This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  "leaders, go out in public and express intense indignation over the fact that the privacy of their citizens is being systematically breached, and genuine indignation when they learn that their privacy has also been targeted." - Glen Greenwald https://github.com/poppingtonic/greenwald-30c3-keynote/blob/master/transcript/transcript.md https://github.com/poppingtonic/greenwald-30c3-keynote/blob/...
- gizmo686 13y ago
  In fairness, spying of congress (and the president, judges, etc) does seem much more concerning then spying on most citizens, as it would allow them to break the checks on their power that those bodies should provide. In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.
  - sln 13y ago
    Yeah but if you're trying to catch criminals the signal to noise is far better with presidents, judges, and congress than with boring, normal citizens.
    - frandroid 13y ago
      Hehe, good one. FTR, the ratio is much lower when trying to catch foreign terrorists. :P
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians Would? That has been standard fair at least since the days of J.E Hoover.
wil421 13y ago
Keeps your friends close and your enemies closer. In this case why not spy on the people who have the power to cut your funding. Even though its clearly wrong and sounds like something North Korea does.
rl3 13y ago
This was actually central to a scandal that happened a few years ago involving former congresswoman Jane Harman. The allegations claiming that she was caught red-handed in impropriety were based on NSA transcripts.[1,2] Also, somewhat unrelated yet interesting: Harman authored an op-ed in the Washington Post a couple months ago.[3] It seems she primarily railed against the NSA, while simultaneously failing to disclose her obvious conflict of interest, and took a parting shot at Snowden in the process. [1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harman-denies-cq-report-she-was-caught-on-nsa-wiretap-lobbying-for-aipac-officials.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harm... [2] http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ (Gleen Greenwald authored this piece.) [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for-a-post-snowden-age/2013/11/07/be307c90-464c-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for...
differentView 13y ago
Of course they do. If I am controlling the spying, every top law and business school student and people close to them would be under surveillance the day they were accepted.
callcongressnow 13y ago
If you'd like to call or get in contact with Senator Sanders, try: http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/S000033 http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/S000033 Just click the call button, give the microphone permissions, and then it will call his Washington office for you via Twilio. If you'd like to find another member of Congress, just visit the root domain: http://www.callcongressnow.org/ http://www.callcongressnow.org/ This is a little app I've been working on and I'm just starting to talk about it today, so bugs are to be expected. If you find one, please file an issue here: https://github.com/zmaril/callcongressnow https://github.com/zmaril/callcongressnow
natch 13y ago
>Sanders ... defined "spying" as "gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business". To the twisted minds at the NSA, there are a ton of loopholes in that language, unfortunately.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
I can't help but feel that this is fake outrage, given for example, this writeup of a 60 minutes interview ... from the year 2000: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-snoop-confirms-echelon-network/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-snoop-confirms-echelon-networ... "America politicians may also have been eavesdropped on, says Margaret Newsham, a woman who worked at Menwith Hill in England, the NSA's largest spy station. She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago."
- Theodores 13y ago
  I thought of this too! This is why the question is such a good one. When 'Snowden's grandmother' tried to out them on exactly this minor detail of spying on a congressman she did not provide any primary first hand evidence, e.g. a tape recording. It was her word against the NSA's. Obviously we believe her, or at least we do now! So when the NSA say they have never spied on anyone in congress, they will have to carefully craft their lie. I can't wait for it!
pygy_ 13y ago
I hope they strongly deny any spying, only to be burnt on the next morning by yet another leaked slide.
danielharan 13y ago
Now it makes sense. Every closeted gay Republican senator and aide knows the NSA has dirt on them, so they shut up. (We all have stuff we don't want others to know, but few seem as common or career destroying as gay-bashing senators being in the closet) Relevant: "Apparently to the homophobes running the NSA, chickenfuckers were a-okay — the security threat came from gays." http://pando.com/2013/12/29/snowdens-biggest-revelation-we-dont-know-what-power-is-anymore-nor-do-we-care/ http://pando.com/2013/12/29/snowdens-biggest-revelation-we-d...
- nealabq 13y ago
  I think the chickens were judged okay only after they'd confirmed no roosters were involved.
dpatrick86 13y ago
I'm confused by this. I thought this was already established fact based on declassified documents? http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/09/27/nsa-spied-on-us-senators/ http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/09/27/nsa-spied-on-us-s...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jimhefferon 13y ago
Obviously they do. What kind of naive child would ask this question?
- a3n 13y ago
  A child trying to draw out perjury in the same way that a prosecutor might.
ajays 13y ago
Gen Clapper lied once[1] under direct questioning by a Senator who knew the answer already. What makes Sen Sanders think that they won't lie again? [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...
swedegeek 13y ago
Does anyone feel more reticent than usual to chime in on these threads despite this being one of the most provocative topics on HN? Asking for a friend...
- a3n 13y ago
  No, I don't. I admit that I very occasionally think twice about saying some things. Actually I think writing about the NSA in forums like this, and in email, is the only effective way I have at trying to convince the analysts and spies that they're doing the wrong thing. [You listening, analyst spy?]
gabeguz 13y ago
I wonder if I can do the same thing with the MPAA: well, yes I downloaded all those movies, but I haven't watched any of them. Really, if I decide to watch one, there is a process by which I purchase it first. Promise. It's not infringement unless I actually WATCH the movie.
rbanffy 13y ago
I'm pretty sure they keep an eye on representatives that are involved in acts of treason, such as questioning or attempting to restrict the NSA.
kyleblarson 13y ago
How many senators and congressman (conservative republicans in particular) are thinking "oh shit, i hope grindr uses eliptic curve crypto" right now?
schainks 13y ago
IMO, this is something tax dollars should pay for. Don't use tax money to spy on citizens, use it to spy on members of congress so they have incentive to behave in a less corrupt way. I personally don't mind that elected officials should have to transparently have their lives monitored. If I was an elected official, I wouldn't mind either. I'd rather it be the reason I was voted into office in the first place. If members of the legislative branch are transparently spied on by another branch (in this case executive) of the government, it should keep corruption down, no?

158 points by joshfraser 13y ago

I'm not sure why this particular question is relevant. It seems to assume that members of Congress should be better protected in their privacy than the rest of us. But I submit that the opposite is true: they should be scrutinized to a much greater degree, and (nearly) everything they do in their office should be an open book to us.

ProAm 13y ago

Uhh of course they do. Why would they be exempt? If anything they are a legitimate target for fears of compromising national security.

godgod 13y ago
congress legit targets? when the system can't trust someone, the system can not be trusted.
saraid216 13y ago
The goal is to have an answer on record.
- ProAm 13y ago
  It's pretty clear they do not care about being honest on record. Nor do we do anything about it when we find them in a lie.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I said the point was to have an answer on record. The point is not to have the truth on record; that has never been useful.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      So then, how is having an answer on record going to be useful?
      - saraid216 13y ago
        If the answer is yes, > Acknowledgement that it has collected the communications records of American lawmakers and other officials is likely to make it harder for the NSA to argue that it needs such broad collection powers to defend against terrorism. If the answer is no, > The letter’s authors include surveillance skeptics like Sensenbrenner as well as those who voted against an earlier curtailment of NSA authorities, like Franks and Issa, the chairman of the House oversight committee. > “There can be no disagreement, however, on the basic premise that congressional witnesses must answer truthfully,” read the letter, which requested a reply by 10 January.
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        You are saying that an answer of "no" is just not credible. I agree with that.
        saraid216 13y ago
        That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        > I'm saying that getting a lie on record But you are certain that it would be a lie? Then it is implicit in this that the "no" is not credible. You're not being very clear.
        saraid216 13y ago
        What would you like me to clarify? If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?
walshemj 13y ago
Well the soviet sleepers where trying to make Friends and contacts with people in government so if a congressman or Senator had an "aide" like "Katia" Zatuliveter an Aide to the MP for Portsmouth who is on the defense committee I bet the FBI counter espionage guys would be interested And in the Past MI5 did catch a US diplomat working for the nazi's s well as catching an MP spying for the opposition John Stone House for the STB.
Torgo 13y ago
Congress can fuck up the country far more effectively than terrorism. See: Congress' response to terrorism. The scrutiny on them should be ENORMOUS but instead it is exactly the reverse, they are using a billions-dollar world eavesdropping device to parallel-construction convict petty pot dealers.
- dwaltrip 13y ago
  Yes but I don't think closed door NSA style surveillance of congress people would be helpful. Government open data programs? Probably a better direction.
genwin 13y ago
They are also a target so that the head of the NSA can effectively control the country.

leeoniya 13y ago

"...if the NSA has spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials" It depends on your definitions of "has", "spied", "spying", "currently", "elected" and "members". So the answer is, "No".

drdeadringer 13y ago
I find it very depressing that semantics and definitions of fairly common-sense words are at the center of this particular set of weaseling.
- wil421 13y ago
  Lawyer talk and double speak. Bill Clinton got away with the Monica comment about sex and so will the next bunch about something different.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    If you call impeachment getting away with it. Side note: his predecessor had a long-time mistress that was well known to beltway insiders. The Right changed the rules once they were out of power.
    - wil421 13y ago
      Times have changed its no longer acceptable to have a mistress no matter what position you're in.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Semantics and definitions are what the law is :) In this case, as the parent points out, this is entirely the wrong way to ask the question. You don't ask them whether they did X, you ask them what information they have, and then for each piece of information, how was it acquired.
- SDMattG 13y ago
  It is so incredibly infuriating...and by the people who are supposed to be looking out for us.

2bluesc 13y ago

This result of this should be interesting.

gojomo 13y ago

Only for training purposes, with recordings promptly destroyed! See from 1995 (!): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-12/news/1995346001_1_nsa-eavesdropping-listening-national-security-agency http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-12/news/1995346001_... FTA: "We listened to all the calls in and out of Washington," says one former NSA linguist, recalling a class at the Warrenton Training Center, a CIA communications school on a Virginia hilltop. "We'd listen to senators, representatives, government agencies, housewives talking to their lovers."

f_salmon 13y ago
Also, for those who have missed it: Obama was being surveilled as well, before being elected: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/ http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-... Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet (if you compare his promises and reality, it sure looks like it). And that would then mean that no future President would be able to start limiting the growing corruption, with the NSA in power.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet Effectively? Nobody gets the backing of a major party for his nomination, donations, etc, without being thorougly screened and vetoed that they'll "do the right thing" to continue supporting several interests (partisan, financial, political, etc). It's not like parties do all this gerrymandering and political games to then allow some loose canon President to realy change the system. In that sense, they are all puppets, even without surveillance coming into play.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    The difference is that when the puppetmasters are two political parties in competition to each other, they have adapt their positions to popular opinion or else their puppets loose power and become worthless. When the puppetmasters are the NSA, then they do not need to adapt their posistions, because regardless of the election, they still have puppets.

scottmcleod 13y ago

Uhh duh? Can't have those closest to you acting up..

sethbannon 13y ago

This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
"leaders, go out in public and express intense indignation over the fact that the privacy of their citizens is being systematically breached, and genuine indignation when they learn that their privacy has also been targeted." - Glen Greenwald https://github.com/poppingtonic/greenwald-30c3-keynote/blob/master/transcript/transcript.md https://github.com/poppingtonic/greenwald-30c3-keynote/blob/...
gizmo686 13y ago
In fairness, spying of congress (and the president, judges, etc) does seem much more concerning then spying on most citizens, as it would allow them to break the checks on their power that those bodies should provide. In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.
- sln 13y ago
  Yeah but if you're trying to catch criminals the signal to noise is far better with presidents, judges, and congress than with boring, normal citizens.
  - frandroid 13y ago
    Hehe, good one. FTR, the ratio is much lower when trying to catch foreign terrorists. :P
- coldtea 13y ago
  >In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians Would? That has been standard fair at least since the days of J.E Hoover.

wil421 13y ago

Keeps your friends close and your enemies closer. In this case why not spy on the people who have the power to cut your funding. Even though its clearly wrong and sounds like something North Korea does.

rl3 13y ago

This was actually central to a scandal that happened a few years ago involving former congresswoman Jane Harman. The allegations claiming that she was caught red-handed in impropriety were based on NSA transcripts.[1,2] Also, somewhat unrelated yet interesting: Harman authored an op-ed in the Washington Post a couple months ago.[3] It seems she primarily railed against the NSA, while simultaneously failing to disclose her obvious conflict of interest, and took a parting shot at Snowden in the process. [1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harman-denies-cq-report-she-was-caught-on-nsa-wiretap-lobbying-for-aipac-officials.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harm... [2] http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ (Gleen Greenwald authored this piece.) [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for-a-post-snowden-age/2013/11/07/be307c90-464c-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for...

differentView 13y ago

Of course they do. If I am controlling the spying, every top law and business school student and people close to them would be under surveillance the day they were accepted.

callcongressnow 13y ago

If you'd like to call or get in contact with Senator Sanders, try: http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/S000033 http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/S000033 Just click the call button, give the microphone permissions, and then it will call his Washington office for you via Twilio. If you'd like to find another member of Congress, just visit the root domain: http://www.callcongressnow.org/ http://www.callcongressnow.org/ This is a little app I've been working on and I'm just starting to talk about it today, so bugs are to be expected. If you find one, please file an issue here: https://github.com/zmaril/callcongressnow https://github.com/zmaril/callcongressnow

natch 13y ago

>Sanders ... defined "spying" as "gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business". To the twisted minds at the NSA, there are a ton of loopholes in that language, unfortunately.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

I can't help but feel that this is fake outrage, given for example, this writeup of a 60 minutes interview ... from the year 2000: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-snoop-confirms-echelon-network/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-snoop-confirms-echelon-networ... "America politicians may also have been eavesdropped on, says Margaret Newsham, a woman who worked at Menwith Hill in England, the NSA's largest spy station. She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago."

Theodores 13y ago
I thought of this too! This is why the question is such a good one. When 'Snowden's grandmother' tried to out them on exactly this minor detail of spying on a congressman she did not provide any primary first hand evidence, e.g. a tape recording. It was her word against the NSA's. Obviously we believe her, or at least we do now! So when the NSA say they have never spied on anyone in congress, they will have to carefully craft their lie. I can't wait for it!

pygy_ 13y ago

I hope they strongly deny any spying, only to be burnt on the next morning by yet another leaked slide.

danielharan 13y ago

Now it makes sense. Every closeted gay Republican senator and aide knows the NSA has dirt on them, so they shut up. (We all have stuff we don't want others to know, but few seem as common or career destroying as gay-bashing senators being in the closet) Relevant: "Apparently to the homophobes running the NSA, chickenfuckers were a-okay — the security threat came from gays." http://pando.com/2013/12/29/snowdens-biggest-revelation-we-dont-know-what-power-is-anymore-nor-do-we-care/ http://pando.com/2013/12/29/snowdens-biggest-revelation-we-d...

nealabq 13y ago
I think the chickens were judged okay only after they'd confirmed no roosters were involved.

dpatrick86 13y ago

I'm confused by this. I thought this was already established fact based on declassified documents? http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/09/27/nsa-spied-on-us-senators/ http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/09/27/nsa-spied-on-us-s...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jimhefferon 13y ago

Obviously they do. What kind of naive child would ask this question?

a3n 13y ago
A child trying to draw out perjury in the same way that a prosecutor might.

ajays 13y ago

Gen Clapper lied once[1] under direct questioning by a Senator who knew the answer already. What makes Sen Sanders think that they won't lie again? [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...

swedegeek 13y ago

Does anyone feel more reticent than usual to chime in on these threads despite this being one of the most provocative topics on HN? Asking for a friend...

a3n 13y ago
No, I don't. I admit that I very occasionally think twice about saying some things. Actually I think writing about the NSA in forums like this, and in email, is the only effective way I have at trying to convince the analysts and spies that they're doing the wrong thing. [You listening, analyst spy?]

gabeguz 13y ago

I wonder if I can do the same thing with the MPAA: well, yes I downloaded all those movies, but I haven't watched any of them. Really, if I decide to watch one, there is a process by which I purchase it first. Promise. It's not infringement unless I actually WATCH the movie.

rbanffy 13y ago

I'm pretty sure they keep an eye on representatives that are involved in acts of treason, such as questioning or attempting to restrict the NSA.

kyleblarson 13y ago

How many senators and congressman (conservative republicans in particular) are thinking "oh shit, i hope grindr uses eliptic curve crypto" right now?

schainks 13y ago

IMO, this is something tax dollars should pay for. Don't use tax money to spy on citizens, use it to spy on members of congress so they have incentive to behave in a less corrupt way. I personally don't mind that elected officials should have to transparently have their lives monitored. If I was an elected official, I wouldn't mind either. I'd rather it be the reason I was voted into office in the first place. If members of the legislative branch are transparently spied on by another branch (in this case executive) of the government, it should keep corruption down, no?