13 ms·

Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

537 points by edwintorok 13y ago

higherpurpose 13y ago
The Intelligence committees and the FISA Court need to be overhauled, to start with. Clearly there's not enough/proper oversight of the agency. I don't know how they do it now, but the Intelligence committees should also brief the rest of Congress at least twice a year, and I think they should be allowed by explicit laws to declassify anything they want in that briefing. No approval from the White House or anyone else needed. They are, after all, the ones that are supposedly in charge with oversight of the intelligence community. So next time someone like Ron Wyden knows the agency is lying to the public, he should be able to tell the rest of the Congress in the briefing, all by himself (he shouldn't need approval from the rest of the committee), and it should be defined in laws that he's allowed to do that, just so there's no confusion, and no fear of repercussion.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rprospero 13y ago
  The thing is that they already have the framework to do this. A senator is immune from prosecution for anything state on the floor of the senate. If Wyden is on the senate floor, he could read off the nuclear launch codes and there's not a damn thing that the executive can do about it. Furthermore, the senate has closed sessions. They had one just a couple of years ago for the START treaty. A senator could take the floor, tell the rest of the senate about any classified material they like, and the information isn't released to the public unless the Senate votes to remove the injunction of secrecy, so the information remains secure. Even if the injunction is removed, the senator is still protected by some fairly strict constitutional privilege. This seems to be a solved problem.
  - etanazir 13y ago
    Is the senate floor secure from advanced eavesdropping? Can't you bounce a laser off of the marble and listen in?
    - nightpool 13y ago
      I believe they can have a senate session in a more secure location if it becomes necessary. More worrying is what happens when you now have 535 publicity-seeking people knowing about it. See AnimalMuppet's comment upthread, which I think sums the situation up pretty well.
  - higherpurpose 13y ago
    I know about that, but I'm not sure that they are sure they could do something like that and get away with it. Couldn't they be accused of treason or something, and have their immunity revoked? That's why I'm saying that it should be explicitly mentioned in the law that a Senator can do this in Congress, during that Senate briefing. It shouldn't be some vague power that states Senators can do a lot of stuff without fear of repercussion.
  - valarauca1 13y ago
    Actually I'd bet good money if a senator basically starting reading the details of NSA drag net plan on the senate floor they'd be prosecuted by some court for aiding terrorism, or not being American enough.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      Ignoring the political implications for prosecuting a congressperson for leaking on the NSA, you have a lot of legal precedent to overcome. Article 1, Section 6 (the speech and debate clause) of the US constitution states: "...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senator or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." In the case of Gravel v. United States, Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. This was held as protected.
      - hirammcdaniels 13y ago
        They can, however, be questioned in that Place. The House is certainly welcome to impeach a house member who reads launch codes on the floor.
        thyrsus 13y ago
        I wonder if 00000000 was ever read into the congressional record? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...
chippy 13y ago
What's a "SCIF"? Edits: my guess: (Secure Communications Internal Facility)
- jaryd 13y ago
  Sensitive Comparmented Information Facility: In United States security and intelligence parlance, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF; pronounced "skiff") is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) types of classified information. https://duckduckgo.com/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility https://duckduckgo.com/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_F...
  - chippy 13y ago
    thank you!
  - SEJeff 13y ago
    Depending on the level, they often have TEMPEST shielding aka faraday cages to prevent leakage of electromagnetic signals from computers and whatnot. (google Van Eck Phreaking for some ideas on why heh)
    - davidw 13y ago
      Or you could read Cryptonimicon, which is a lot slower, but more fun: http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0060512806?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/00605... Startups and science fiction... that book is a favorite of mine.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - cwp 13y ago
        It's more historical fiction than science-fiction.
Helianthus 13y ago
It's good to know that we do have some legislators on (essentially) our side, even if their hands are, presently, tied.
- chippy 13y ago
  This is incredibly important. It means that there is hope, that the government is not some evil conspiracy, that there are people in power, people like ourselves. The film Enemy of the State, and conspiracy theories mean that normal people think it is the status quo that our lives are under 100% surveillance and that they are powerless. In a way its been argued that this is quite comforting. Imagine a world where no-one knows what they are doing versus imagining a world where there is a conspiracy, an evil plan. What this type of public culture makes and what the worst conspiracy theories do is make politics seem hopeless, encourages apathy and reduces trust in politicians. At the same time it makes it easier for the real abusers of power to get away with it. The recent phone tapping cases in the US being a point in case. Everyone thought it was going on all the time anyhow, so when it was revealed no one was suprised, and so the consequences were slight. To know that those in power do actually think, and do listen, and do believe in the political process is very very vital.
- ihsw 13y ago
  I'd recommend you watch the NSA congressional hearings starting from June. The first one is notable in that there is quite clearly some discontent. Here is a start: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CybersecurityThreats http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CybersecurityThreats
- dsuth 13y ago
  It would be wrong to suggest that they're 'on our side', whatever that means, just because they met with Schneier. This could be a publicity stunt, a fact-hunting exercise (What exactly do you know, Mr. Schneier?), or just a genuine personal interest in checking other sources of information against the NSA line. Regardless of their motivation, these people are still part of the same machine that put the NSA in motion, and thus far have been ineffective in curbing even it's more obvious breaches. Action speak louder than words...
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
Currently, the Intelligence Committees have special access to top secret information. Every member of Congress should have this.
- danielrhodes 13y ago
  They do have access. Staff must have security clearance, of course. Elected representatives are entitled, by virtue of their office, to classified information. Although there are obvious concerns with keeping information secret here, the alternative would subvert the democratic process. Having said that, I'm not sure what bureaucratic obstacles the executive branch has put in place to obtaining classified information.
- belluchan 13y ago
  With 535 of them not including staff, they really shouldn't. And clearance isn't enough, you also have to have a need to know. We just need a system of oversight that works well.
  - mahyarm 13y ago
    With the amount of NSA staffers and people who have clearance being well above that number, really?
    - bri3d 13y ago
      "Clearance" isn't supposed to be some magic card that lets someone go find every document marked with their level of "clearance." It's just a permission to receive knowledge marked with that level of "clearance" as necessary to do one's job. NSA staffers have defined roles and are given information on a need-to-know basis. Obviously the Snowden leaks proved that at least for a sysad, the technical component of the need-to-know restriction was broken, but that's how it's supposed to work. For Congressional oversight to be useful, Congress (or a subset) need a higher level of access than that given to the NSA themselves - the ability to ask for any information and have it given to them. That's a pretty powerful tool, so I don't think the "well NSA has lot of people" counter is valid.
AnimalMuppet 13y ago
Imagine that the NSA was only doing legitimate, useful, necessary, highly secret things (humor me here). Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release. So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. But who are these representatives Schneier briefed? Are they on the Intelligence Committee? If so, and they still can't get straight answers out of the NSA, that's a big deal. (And maybe the rest of Congress is saying that they don't think that the Intelligence Committee has done an adequate job of oversight.)
- fit2rule 13y ago
  The corruption of government starts with its secrets. A truly free people don't keep secrets. Somewhere in this grey mass is a line, and that line gets crossed and crossed, over and over again. What secret is worth keeping if its keeping results in oppression, tyranny, inhumanity? Why should those who are given the right to murder, get away with murder - just because it is 'unsafe' to prosecute the murders? The reason, always given, is "[some secret reason]". Well, the saying goes, keep the secret .. or else! Or else .. 'bad things happen'. Yet .. Those who work tirelessly to keep secrets, are themselves the bad things .. happening. What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! It is only when a secret is kept that lines are drawn between two life-forms who would otherwise, ordinarily, be cooperating/communicating to increase their combined potential. Profiting from this - always - is another, third life-form, whose control over the others' secrets will give him two slaves. The answer to your question: Congress, if it were doing its job, would have already read Snowdens' statements into the public record, and there wouldn't be any debate about the criminal proceedings that would then follow: all the tyrants would be frog-marched directly to jail. It may yet .. still .. happen. Let us wait and see.
  - ForHackernews 13y ago
    > A truly free people don't keep secrets. > What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs. I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.
rdl 13y ago
It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, but it's not cheap. (You can also potentially keep the person under observation the whole time, but given the purported Chuck Norris powers of Bruce Schneier, that seems insufficient.)
- fit2rule 13y ago
  >It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Infruriating Hog-wash! This security theatre is baloney, and it is the Great Wall, itself .. erected precisely to allow the Security Classes to control their mignons. SCIF's? Why are they even necessary in the first place, in a society that prides itself on Freedom Dogma? This is not democracy - this is tyranny! If a private citizen cannot have a safe conversation with people who represent them, then you do not have representation but total interference. The American Super-Security State has definitely usurped the basic principles of democracy from its true owners.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I think you missed the part where he had the conversation anyway, in a regular room. The procedures for handling classified information, especially SCI and ECI, are there to protect from foreign intelligence services. i.e. people doing exactly the shit NSA is accused/documented of doing to foreign governments.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      I think you missed the point that I asked: why is there no secure facilities specifically for the purpose of citizen/representative conversation? Is it only the privileged elite military class that get the fun toys? I think it is ..
clubhi 13y ago
The obvious answer to me seems to have multiple disjoint intelligence committees.
bargl 13y ago
On his blog Schneier comments that this meeting was kept small on purpose. I wanted to see who was present at this meeting so I looked up some of their information. Not hard to find, but here you go. I plan on emailing each of them and thanking them for consulting someone the tech industry considers a Security SME. Rep. Logfren (Democratic) http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren Rep. Sensenbrenner (Republican) http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/biography/ http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner Rep. Scott (Democratic) http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/biography/ http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Scott_%28U.S._politician%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Scott_%28U.S._politician%... Rep. Goodlate (Republican) http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/about-bob http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/about-bob Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte Rep Thompson (Democratic) http://mikethompson.house.gov/biography/ http://mikethompson.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Thompson_(California_politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Thompson_(California_polit... Rep. Amash (Republican) http://amash.house.gov/about-me/full-biography http://amash.house.gov/about-me/full-biography Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash Edit: Cleaned up one of the links and got rid of a repetitive sentence.
- rhizome 13y ago
  I hope the Senate follows suit.
- Wohlf 13y ago
  Thank you for providing this info, I'll be doing the same. I'm glad to see my district representative was in attendance.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  s/gf/fg/
- logn 13y ago
  (If you use Facebook) I recommend following Rep. Amash as he explains every one of his votes in a status update. It's a great way to stay informed, and he actually approaches his decisions with sensible reasoning you'll enjoy (regardless of your political leanings).
donohoe 13y ago
Webcache version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_briefed.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
aantix 13y ago
>Of course I'm not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. Why wouldn't he?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- gizmo686 13y ago
  A group of congresspeople agree to have a candid conversation with you behind closed doors, and you publicize the details of what was said. Good luck getting another conversation with anyone.
  - RyJones 13y ago
    it also weakens the congresspeople's position the next time they talk to the NSA if the NSA knows the limits of what they know.
vaadu 13y ago
There is no oversight except on paper. You can't have oversight unless you have expertise in the area you oversee. You can't have oversight unless the overseers can impose immediate consequences upon the overseen. Without these you are nothing but a spectator.
- syntern 13y ago
  Might be related to the topic: One aspect of the Dilbert-universe the pointy-haired boss who has no expertise, yet he imposes immediate consequences upon the overseen. In contrast, if we are calling for management that does (understand) code, we are calling for management that have expertise. This begs the question: who would be able to oversee the agencies with expertise, ever?
  - antsar 13y ago
    Sn^H^Ha former employee/contractor?
    - tedivm 13y ago
      You mean like the revolving door between financial regulators and the banks they oversee?
shmerl 13y ago
This could be almost hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The Congress has to be briefed by someone with access to leaked documents to get an idea what a government agency is doing, because the later "is not forthcoming".....
Zelphyr 13y ago
"...Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me." THIS PEOPLE! THIS is why the Snowden revelations are such a big deal! We have a rogue branch government with arguably little to no oversight!
- phaus 13y ago
  They might not know what the NSA is up to, but they sure as hell created the mechanisms that led to that predicament.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Congress required the NSA to clear some things with a court. The NSA lied to the court; that's not Congress's fault.
    - phaus 13y ago
      I didn't say that it was their fault that the NSA lied. Its their fault that secret courts, the Patriot Act, and a number of other things exist. Its also their fault that the constitution has been systematically undermined for the last four decades. It was hilarious watching a bunch of congressmen feign disbelief when they know that its their fucking fault. Its depressing watching the public believe them. If they really didn't know this was going on, they would be trying harder now to stop it instead of passing legislation to solidify the NSA's position. The only thing that we can be certain of, is that our elected representatives' response to these revelations is going to be disappointing, misguided, and inadequate.
      - afarrell 13y ago
        "The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellige... Even if you're talking as about changes to it in the PATRIOT Act, that was passed on October 26, 2001. Each congressional district has had 6 elections since then, so some of these congresscritters never voted for or against the creation of the court. Of the ones that did, how many were on the committee that produced this? How many read it? http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...
tokenadult 13y ago
Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congress in such a facility, but could not do so because he is denied access to such facilities as someone without the appropriate security clearances. And that puzzled me, and prompted me to read the Wikipedia article after reading Schneier's blog post submitted here, because I had been told years ago, when I definitely did not have the appropriate level of clearance for a SCIF (as I have never had and probably never will have) that I did have access to a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees. I was inside the room at the time, with foreign visitors. (I was there as the interpreter for the foreign visitors.) I saw the hearing room back in the 1980s, as I recall, as part of a people-to-people program funded by the United States government that brought over people from other countries to look at how society works in the United States. The look inside the secure room was part of learning about how intelligence agencies in the United States are overseen by Congress. It was represented to us that when the room in the Capitol was closed up, it was impervious to any then-known form of surveillance. So now what Schneier says has me puzzled about whether or not there is any level of secure room between what he calls a "regular room" and a room that a United States citizen can only enter with a very high level of security clearance. It seems to me that there ought to be some kind of in-between room like that, precisely for meetings like the one Schneier just had. That would be better for effective congressional oversight, I think.
- phaus 13y ago
  There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.
  - ENGNR 13y ago
    Or they're not taking the NSA's need for secrecy very seriously
  - RyJones 13y ago
    Or that one wasn't open. Schedule tetris for Congresspeople and a SCIF might be a hard problem.
peterkelly 13y ago
"Chief, shouldn't we use the Cone of Silence?"
- redknight666 13y ago
  LOL. I remember watching it when I was a child.
blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
I was just listening to Slate's political gabfest podcast...they talked about the NSA. It occurred to me that the media is still only talking about phone call metadata while the rest of us have been in the weeds of the rest of their activities, which are far more intrusive than metadata... How do you get that message to people?

537 points by edwintorok 13y ago

The Intelligence committees and the FISA Court need to be overhauled, to start with. Clearly there's not enough/proper oversight of the agency. I don't know how they do it now, but the Intelligence committees should also brief the rest of Congress at least twice a year, and I think they should be allowed by explicit laws to declassify anything they want in that briefing. No approval from the White House or anyone else needed. They are, after all, the ones that are supposedly in charge with oversight of the intelligence community. So next time someone like Ron Wyden knows the agency is lying to the public, he should be able to tell the rest of the Congress in the briefing, all by himself (he shouldn't need approval from the rest of the committee), and it should be defined in laws that he's allowed to do that, just so there's no confusion, and no fear of repercussion.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rprospero 13y ago
The thing is that they already have the framework to do this. A senator is immune from prosecution for anything state on the floor of the senate. If Wyden is on the senate floor, he could read off the nuclear launch codes and there's not a damn thing that the executive can do about it. Furthermore, the senate has closed sessions. They had one just a couple of years ago for the START treaty. A senator could take the floor, tell the rest of the senate about any classified material they like, and the information isn't released to the public unless the Senate votes to remove the injunction of secrecy, so the information remains secure. Even if the injunction is removed, the senator is still protected by some fairly strict constitutional privilege. This seems to be a solved problem.
- etanazir 13y ago
  Is the senate floor secure from advanced eavesdropping? Can't you bounce a laser off of the marble and listen in?
  - nightpool 13y ago
    I believe they can have a senate session in a more secure location if it becomes necessary. More worrying is what happens when you now have 535 publicity-seeking people knowing about it. See AnimalMuppet's comment upthread, which I think sums the situation up pretty well.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  I know about that, but I'm not sure that they are sure they could do something like that and get away with it. Couldn't they be accused of treason or something, and have their immunity revoked? That's why I'm saying that it should be explicitly mentioned in the law that a Senator can do this in Congress, during that Senate briefing. It shouldn't be some vague power that states Senators can do a lot of stuff without fear of repercussion.
- valarauca1 13y ago
  Actually I'd bet good money if a senator basically starting reading the details of NSA drag net plan on the senate floor they'd be prosecuted by some court for aiding terrorism, or not being American enough.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    Ignoring the political implications for prosecuting a congressperson for leaking on the NSA, you have a lot of legal precedent to overcome. Article 1, Section 6 (the speech and debate clause) of the US constitution states: "...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senator or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." In the case of Gravel v. United States, Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. This was held as protected.
    - hirammcdaniels 13y ago
      They can, however, be questioned in that Place. The House is certainly welcome to impeach a house member who reads launch codes on the floor.
      - thyrsus 13y ago
        I wonder if 00000000 was ever read into the congressional record? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...

chippy 13y ago

What's a "SCIF"? Edits: my guess: (Secure Communications Internal Facility)

jaryd 13y ago
Sensitive Comparmented Information Facility: In United States security and intelligence parlance, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF; pronounced "skiff") is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) types of classified information. https://duckduckgo.com/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility https://duckduckgo.com/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_F...
- chippy 13y ago
  thank you!
- SEJeff 13y ago
  Depending on the level, they often have TEMPEST shielding aka faraday cages to prevent leakage of electromagnetic signals from computers and whatnot. (google Van Eck Phreaking for some ideas on why heh)
  - davidw 13y ago
    Or you could read Cryptonimicon, which is a lot slower, but more fun: http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0060512806?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/00605... Startups and science fiction... that book is a favorite of mine.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - cwp 13y ago
      It's more historical fiction than science-fiction.

Helianthus 13y ago

It's good to know that we do have some legislators on (essentially) our side, even if their hands are, presently, tied.

chippy 13y ago
This is incredibly important. It means that there is hope, that the government is not some evil conspiracy, that there are people in power, people like ourselves. The film Enemy of the State, and conspiracy theories mean that normal people think it is the status quo that our lives are under 100% surveillance and that they are powerless. In a way its been argued that this is quite comforting. Imagine a world where no-one knows what they are doing versus imagining a world where there is a conspiracy, an evil plan. What this type of public culture makes and what the worst conspiracy theories do is make politics seem hopeless, encourages apathy and reduces trust in politicians. At the same time it makes it easier for the real abusers of power to get away with it. The recent phone tapping cases in the US being a point in case. Everyone thought it was going on all the time anyhow, so when it was revealed no one was suprised, and so the consequences were slight. To know that those in power do actually think, and do listen, and do believe in the political process is very very vital.
ihsw 13y ago
I'd recommend you watch the NSA congressional hearings starting from June. The first one is notable in that there is quite clearly some discontent. Here is a start: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CybersecurityThreats http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CybersecurityThreats
dsuth 13y ago
It would be wrong to suggest that they're 'on our side', whatever that means, just because they met with Schneier. This could be a publicity stunt, a fact-hunting exercise (What exactly do you know, Mr. Schneier?), or just a genuine personal interest in checking other sources of information against the NSA line. Regardless of their motivation, these people are still part of the same machine that put the NSA in motion, and thus far have been ineffective in curbing even it's more obvious breaches. Action speak louder than words...

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

Currently, the Intelligence Committees have special access to top secret information. Every member of Congress should have this.

danielrhodes 13y ago
They do have access. Staff must have security clearance, of course. Elected representatives are entitled, by virtue of their office, to classified information. Although there are obvious concerns with keeping information secret here, the alternative would subvert the democratic process. Having said that, I'm not sure what bureaucratic obstacles the executive branch has put in place to obtaining classified information.
belluchan 13y ago
With 535 of them not including staff, they really shouldn't. And clearance isn't enough, you also have to have a need to know. We just need a system of oversight that works well.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  With the amount of NSA staffers and people who have clearance being well above that number, really?
  - bri3d 13y ago
    "Clearance" isn't supposed to be some magic card that lets someone go find every document marked with their level of "clearance." It's just a permission to receive knowledge marked with that level of "clearance" as necessary to do one's job. NSA staffers have defined roles and are given information on a need-to-know basis. Obviously the Snowden leaks proved that at least for a sysad, the technical component of the need-to-know restriction was broken, but that's how it's supposed to work. For Congressional oversight to be useful, Congress (or a subset) need a higher level of access than that given to the NSA themselves - the ability to ask for any information and have it given to them. That's a pretty powerful tool, so I don't think the "well NSA has lot of people" counter is valid.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

Imagine that the NSA was only doing legitimate, useful, necessary, highly secret things (humor me here). Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release. So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. But who are these representatives Schneier briefed? Are they on the Intelligence Committee? If so, and they still can't get straight answers out of the NSA, that's a big deal. (And maybe the rest of Congress is saying that they don't think that the Intelligence Committee has done an adequate job of oversight.)

fit2rule 13y ago
The corruption of government starts with its secrets. A truly free people don't keep secrets. Somewhere in this grey mass is a line, and that line gets crossed and crossed, over and over again. What secret is worth keeping if its keeping results in oppression, tyranny, inhumanity? Why should those who are given the right to murder, get away with murder - just because it is 'unsafe' to prosecute the murders? The reason, always given, is "[some secret reason]". Well, the saying goes, keep the secret .. or else! Or else .. 'bad things happen'. Yet .. Those who work tirelessly to keep secrets, are themselves the bad things .. happening. What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! It is only when a secret is kept that lines are drawn between two life-forms who would otherwise, ordinarily, be cooperating/communicating to increase their combined potential. Profiting from this - always - is another, third life-form, whose control over the others' secrets will give him two slaves. The answer to your question: Congress, if it were doing its job, would have already read Snowdens' statements into the public record, and there wouldn't be any debate about the criminal proceedings that would then follow: all the tyrants would be frog-marched directly to jail. It may yet .. still .. happen. Let us wait and see.
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  > A truly free people don't keep secrets. > What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs. I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.

rdl 13y ago

It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, but it's not cheap. (You can also potentially keep the person under observation the whole time, but given the purported Chuck Norris powers of Bruce Schneier, that seems insufficient.)

fit2rule 13y ago
>It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Infruriating Hog-wash! This security theatre is baloney, and it is the Great Wall, itself .. erected precisely to allow the Security Classes to control their mignons. SCIF's? Why are they even necessary in the first place, in a society that prides itself on Freedom Dogma? This is not democracy - this is tyranny! If a private citizen cannot have a safe conversation with people who represent them, then you do not have representation but total interference. The American Super-Security State has definitely usurped the basic principles of democracy from its true owners.
- rdl 13y ago
  I think you missed the part where he had the conversation anyway, in a regular room. The procedures for handling classified information, especially SCI and ECI, are there to protect from foreign intelligence services. i.e. people doing exactly the shit NSA is accused/documented of doing to foreign governments.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    I think you missed the point that I asked: why is there no secure facilities specifically for the purpose of citizen/representative conversation? Is it only the privileged elite military class that get the fun toys? I think it is ..

clubhi 13y ago

The obvious answer to me seems to have multiple disjoint intelligence committees.

bargl 13y ago

On his blog Schneier comments that this meeting was kept small on purpose. I wanted to see who was present at this meeting so I looked up some of their information. Not hard to find, but here you go. I plan on emailing each of them and thanking them for consulting someone the tech industry considers a Security SME. Rep. Logfren (Democratic) http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren Rep. Sensenbrenner (Republican) http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/biography/ http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner Rep. Scott (Democratic) http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/biography/ http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Scott_%28U.S._politician%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Scott_%28U.S._politician%... Rep. Goodlate (Republican) http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/about-bob http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/about-bob Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte Rep Thompson (Democratic) http://mikethompson.house.gov/biography/ http://mikethompson.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Thompson_(California_politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Thompson_(California_polit... Rep. Amash (Republican) http://amash.house.gov/about-me/full-biography http://amash.house.gov/about-me/full-biography Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash Edit: Cleaned up one of the links and got rid of a repetitive sentence.

rhizome 13y ago
I hope the Senate follows suit.
Wohlf 13y ago
Thank you for providing this info, I'll be doing the same. I'm glad to see my district representative was in attendance.
dllthomas 13y ago
s/gf/fg/
logn 13y ago
(If you use Facebook) I recommend following Rep. Amash as he explains every one of his votes in a status update. It's a great way to stay informed, and he actually approaches his decisions with sensible reasoning you'll enjoy (regardless of your political leanings).

donohoe 13y ago

Webcache version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_briefed.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

aantix 13y ago

>Of course I'm not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. Why wouldn't he?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gizmo686 13y ago
A group of congresspeople agree to have a candid conversation with you behind closed doors, and you publicize the details of what was said. Good luck getting another conversation with anyone.
- RyJones 13y ago
  it also weakens the congresspeople's position the next time they talk to the NSA if the NSA knows the limits of what they know.

vaadu 13y ago

There is no oversight except on paper. You can't have oversight unless you have expertise in the area you oversee. You can't have oversight unless the overseers can impose immediate consequences upon the overseen. Without these you are nothing but a spectator.

syntern 13y ago
Might be related to the topic: One aspect of the Dilbert-universe the pointy-haired boss who has no expertise, yet he imposes immediate consequences upon the overseen. In contrast, if we are calling for management that does (understand) code, we are calling for management that have expertise. This begs the question: who would be able to oversee the agencies with expertise, ever?
- antsar 13y ago
  Sn^H^Ha former employee/contractor?
  - tedivm 13y ago
    You mean like the revolving door between financial regulators and the banks they oversee?

shmerl 13y ago

This could be almost hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The Congress has to be briefed by someone with access to leaked documents to get an idea what a government agency is doing, because the later "is not forthcoming".....

Zelphyr 13y ago

"...Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me." THIS PEOPLE! THIS is why the Snowden revelations are such a big deal! We have a rogue branch government with arguably little to no oversight!

phaus 13y ago
They might not know what the NSA is up to, but they sure as hell created the mechanisms that led to that predicament.
- sp332 13y ago
  Congress required the NSA to clear some things with a court. The NSA lied to the court; that's not Congress's fault.
  - phaus 13y ago
    I didn't say that it was their fault that the NSA lied. Its their fault that secret courts, the Patriot Act, and a number of other things exist. Its also their fault that the constitution has been systematically undermined for the last four decades. It was hilarious watching a bunch of congressmen feign disbelief when they know that its their fucking fault. Its depressing watching the public believe them. If they really didn't know this was going on, they would be trying harder now to stop it instead of passing legislation to solidify the NSA's position. The only thing that we can be certain of, is that our elected representatives' response to these revelations is going to be disappointing, misguided, and inadequate.
    - afarrell 13y ago
      "The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellige... Even if you're talking as about changes to it in the PATRIOT Act, that was passed on October 26, 2001. Each congressional district has had 6 elections since then, so some of these congresscritters never voted for or against the creation of the court. Of the ones that did, how many were on the committee that produced this? How many read it? http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...

tokenadult 13y ago

Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congress in such a facility, but could not do so because he is denied access to such facilities as someone without the appropriate security clearances. And that puzzled me, and prompted me to read the Wikipedia article after reading Schneier's blog post submitted here, because I had been told years ago, when I definitely did not have the appropriate level of clearance for a SCIF (as I have never had and probably never will have) that I did have access to a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees. I was inside the room at the time, with foreign visitors. (I was there as the interpreter for the foreign visitors.) I saw the hearing room back in the 1980s, as I recall, as part of a people-to-people program funded by the United States government that brought over people from other countries to look at how society works in the United States. The look inside the secure room was part of learning about how intelligence agencies in the United States are overseen by Congress. It was represented to us that when the room in the Capitol was closed up, it was impervious to any then-known form of surveillance. So now what Schneier says has me puzzled about whether or not there is any level of secure room between what he calls a "regular room" and a room that a United States citizen can only enter with a very high level of security clearance. It seems to me that there ought to be some kind of in-between room like that, precisely for meetings like the one Schneier just had. That would be better for effective congressional oversight, I think.

phaus 13y ago
There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.
- ENGNR 13y ago
  Or they're not taking the NSA's need for secrecy very seriously
- RyJones 13y ago
  Or that one wasn't open. Schedule tetris for Congresspeople and a SCIF might be a hard problem.

peterkelly 13y ago

"Chief, shouldn't we use the Cone of Silence?"

redknight666 13y ago
LOL. I remember watching it when I was a child.

blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago

I was just listening to Slate's political gabfest podcast...they talked about the NSA. It occurred to me that the media is still only talking about phone call metadata while the rest of us have been in the weeds of the rest of their activities, which are far more intrusive than metadata... How do you get that message to people?