19 ms·

Feinstein Publicly Accuses C.I.A. of Spying on Congress

449 points by 001sky 13y ago

nathancahill 13y ago
This is the same women who said "It’s called protecting America" when defending the NSA's gathering of phone call records. [0] So surveillance is good, but not when you're the person being surveilled? [0] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-ns...
- rayiner 13y ago
  This is an overly simplistic argument. It is not inconsistent to believe that it is a far greater danger for the executive to spy on a co-equal branch of government, in a way that acquires content, than when the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata. It's glib to say "oh, so Congressmen are more important than regular people?" but in at least certain ways, it's true. The dangers created in the two situations are quite different. You might have a different evaluation of the relative gravity of the dangers, you have to concede that they're different.
  - Mc_Big_G 13y ago
    ...assuming you believe the "metadata" bullshit.
    - throwawayaway 13y ago
      There's been no proof that it is metadata, we are supposed to take liars at their word. Seems rayiner is willing to do so.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - chc 13y ago
        It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.
        throwawayaway 13y ago
        accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        >So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.
      - lern_too_spel 13y ago
        In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?
        throwawayaway 13y ago
        you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      For better or worse, the distinction between data and metadata is deeply ingrained in 4th amendment law, specifically Smith v. Maryland. And technology hasn't changed the rationale underlying that distinction either. Back in the day, addressing on the outside of an envelope was considered "metadata" and unprotected because you had to reveal that information to the third party for the mail to get routed, so had no expectation of privacy. This same reasoning applies perfectly well to the phone calls in the 1970's in Smith, or for that matter a cell phone call, and arguably TCP/IP headers, today.
      - throwawayaway 13y ago
        It's too much of a jump from one person being recorded without a warrant, to everyone being recorded without a warrant. That distinction hasn't changed at all.
      - shutupalready 13y ago
        My understanding is that the "Subject" line of emails are also considered metadata for the purpose of surveillance and warrantless information demands by police. Subject lines are clearly not needed for routing. There's feature creep (a.k.a. slippery slope) at work even for metadata.
        chc 13y ago
        They're headers, which categorically tend to be viewed as metadata even by technologists. You're right that they aren't necessary for routing, but this is not exactly the government being slippery. Even where encryption is used, metadata — including the subject — tends to be sent in the clear.
        bashinator 13y ago
        They're MUA headers, not MTA headers. That's an important distinction; those headers are generated directly by the end-users' systems, rather than by the systems responsible for routing the mail around.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Ad ignorantiam is to argue that something is true because it has not been proven false. Walk me through how that applies to what I said?
  - ameister14 13y ago
    Personally, I was more disturbed by the Director of National Intelligence perjuring himself before Senate committees and getting away with it. This I actually expected, and I think Feinstein did too; she seems really upset at her staff being threatened.
  - throwwit 13y ago
    'Congressmen' were once 'people' too, is the counter-point I'd make.
- spikels 13y ago
  Yes - Feinstein has been awful on the NSA spying issue. So far there have been only two narrow issues that have bothered her all all: spying on her and spying on friendly foreign leaders. She has been one of the ruling elite for so long that she has lost the ability to see this issue from any other perspective. She needs to retire and enjoy the roughly $100 million she has acquired in a life of "public service".
  - rhizome 13y ago
    The explanation I've seen for Feinstein's apparent two-facedness is that one of her bugaboos is torture. She started her speech with reference to the CIA's destruction of the videotapes documenting torture, and the documents affected by the CIA's actions here are concerned with the SSCI torture report. It just so happens that the current Outside General Counsel for the CIA, Robert Eatinger, is the lawyer who approved the torture tape destruction, and apparently his name is mentioned in the Torture Report 1,600 times for things such as referring SSCI torture investigators to the DOJ for investigation as a method of intimidation.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Correction: OGC is actually "Office of General Counsel," not "Outside."
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Her husband is a wealthy investment banker. It's not inconceivable that he made more because of her connections, but $100m doesn't seem crazy unusual for a "Chairman and President of an equity investment management firm" (as he is described on Wikipedia) over the course of his career. Attributing all of the moneymaking to her is profoundly incorrect without an allegation that her husband would have been unsuccessful but for her profession - which is possible but it's a claim that hasn't been proved and certainly deserves to be made explicit.
- SDGT 13y ago
  Also the same woman who would happily remove your right to protect yourself, but not hers.
- 00rion 13y ago
  Sounds like this would make for a great movie script.
- pekk 13y ago
  So it is OK for CIA to defeat its own oversight?
bradleyy 13y ago
They don't have anything to hide, right? Why should they worry about being surveilled? We need to fight terrorism wherever it is, even in Congress. Right?
vertr07 13y ago
Is anyone surprised by this?
- addflip 13y ago
  Not at all.
- mayneack 13y ago
  I'm shocked this is coming from Feinstein. She's been a big proponent of the CIA/NSA.
  - zeruch 13y ago
    +1 I found both an odd irony and irked by the implication of "its ok to snoop on random citizens, but not on me"
- rhizome 13y ago
  You're being That Guy.
  - vertr07 13y ago
    And so are you.
tptacek 13y ago
The backstory on this seems to be: in the process of compiling the Panetta report, staffers for the Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed a huge number of top-secret cables; the only place they were allowed to do that was in a CIA office building, on equipment provided by CIA. Somehow (another NYT story alludes), CIA came to believe that Senate Intelligence had gained access to more documents than intended, so they rifled through the computers they'd provided. (Even if this is what happened, it's still very bad; I don't understand how CIA gets to mess with its oversight committee in any way.)
- forgotAgain 13y ago
  hmmm, not to sure about the Panetta report part. I thought it was an internal CIA report ordered by Panetta while he ran the CIA. The oversight committee became interested in it because it supposedly confirmed transgressions that the CIA was simultaneously denying to the committee. Somehow the committee came in possession of the report. The CIA is arguing that while viewing computer documents at the CIA,committee investigators hacked the CIA network and obtained the Panetta report.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  The Times reported that the CIA created a special network share with the cables that the staffers were supposed to review, and that the staffers "had penetrated a firewall inside the C.I.A. computer system that had been set up to separate the committee’s work area from other agency digital files". That sounds overblown to me. The SSCI committee hires from the same general pool as the rest of the Hill -- ambitious PoliSci grads, lawyers, and the like. They pay the same crappy wages too. They aren't getting Kevin Mitnick. My guess is that some incompetent windows admin didn't set the permissions right and they were able to click on network neighborhood and access the files in question.
  - bdamm 13y ago
    Maybe - but remember, we're talking about the CIA. My encounters with anyone potentially related to the agency has been that they're quite competent, to say the least. When considering an agency such as the CIA, it's safe to say that incompetence only occurs in areas where competence is not a priority, incompetence is on purpose, or where the situation is beyond the competence of anyone. So my guess is they applied little care to the oversight committee and handed them a sheet of what not to do, such as attempt to browse external web sites. The staffers did so anyway, and now are "penetrating" the firewall that didn't even exist except on paper. The agency now has a reason to restrain activities of oversight staffers that they didn't have before (for violating policy).
chiph 13y ago
Wait wait - I thought she likes the CIA/NSA?
- nkoren 13y ago
  She likes it when they spy on other people.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I don't think it's crazy to consider targeted surveillance of their oversight body as being more of a problem than dragnet surveillance.
- charlesism 13y ago
  "I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"
CWuestefeld 13y ago
See higher-ranked report at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7379236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7379236
qwerty_asdf 13y ago
The technical details for this brouhaha, if I'm interpreting them correctly, sound like they might approach Dilbert levels of managerial incompetence. From Saturday's NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/politics/behind-clash-between-cia-and-congress-a-secret-report-on-interrogations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/politics/behind-clash-b... The room designated for the staff, called the “electronic reading room,” was a spartan office with tables and computers set against the walls and a large conference table in the middle. ... According to a recent court filing in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the C.I.A. created a “network share drive” segregated from the main agency network, a provision intended to allow the committee to work in private. ... It is unclear how or when committee investigators obtained parts of the Panetta review. One official said that they had penetrated a firewall inside the C.I.A. computer system that had been set up to separate the committee’s work area from other agency digital files, but exactly what happened will not be known until the Justice Department completes its inquiry. ... By then, C.I.A. officials had come to suspect that committee investigators working at the Virginia facility had seen at least a version of the internal review. Senior officials at the agency ordered a search of several years’ worth of digital audit logs that the C.I.A. uses to monitor its computer systems. So, based on that very vague description, I'm imagining someone set up an ad-hoc SharePoint server, dumped a bunch of PDFs and MS Office docs on a file system, and absent-mindedly left the C$ share open, and then maybe someone accessed the server as an SMB share, and it showed up in the event logs, and now it's snowballed into "ZOMG u 1337 h4ck3rz, u pwnt mai FIREWALLZ!!!1one" But never let a good disaster go to waste, right?
- ConceptJunkie 13y ago
  >The technical details for this brouhaha, if I'm interpreting them correctly, sound like they might approach Dilbert levels of managerial incompetence. One wonders what "Dilbert" would have been like if Scott Adams had worked for the government instead of a private company.
- runamok 13y ago
  Exactly. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
forgotAgain 13y ago
So the searching of Congressional computers supposedly happened in 2010. She's speaking about it now because she feels the CIA is threatening her committee by turning over the investigation to the Justice department (another Executive branch department). I know I should be outraged but really all I have is WTF. The head of the Senate oversight committee knew that the CIA had violated multiple laws and did absolutely nothing about it for 4 years. This is oversight? This is what we're all depending on to protect us from an out of control set of military / intelligence / industrial dicks?
- pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
  the only solution is rubble. burn it all to the ground.
_nullandnull_ 13y ago
>> Ms. Feinstein said she had sought an apology and an acknowledgment that the C.I.A.'s conduct was improper. This is on par with what a child would get disciplined with for cutting in the lunch line. If a civilian would have done this they would have been prosecuted with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and sentenced to 30 years in jail.
amckenna 13y ago
> The C.I.A. has referred the matter to the Justice Department to investigate possible wrongdoing, a move that Ms. Feinstein called “a potential effort to intimidate this staff.” What could the Justice Department do in the event that they found wrongdoing on the part of the Senate staff? Don't members of the Senate had immunity from this type of prosecution exactly to prevent this type of interference and intimidation?
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on! For those missing the reference, this is from the movie "Casablanca" It's an English idiom used when an official becomes conveniently outraged or overly surprised at something they had known was going on all along. The outrage expressed is a pro forma statement meant for public consumption -- it doesn't necessarily make sense if you examine it closely, and in fact can be quite funny given the context. There is a generic problem here: the legislature in the United States has decided that instead of overseeing the government, it was going to grant huge swaths of power to various agencies, then swoop in for various high-profile investigations when anything went wrong. That way they get to play the hero without actually having to do a lot of work. Well, the problem with this theory of separation of powers is that pretty soon you have dozens or hundreds of agencies, all without much adult supervision, all wanting to do more and more to "help". Without oversight, they turn to the next best thing: in-house legal advice, which tells them what is legal or not. So now we have multiple intelligence agencies doing things their lawyers say are legal, but the majority of the American people are pretty pissed about (or getting that way). The way to fix this is NOT to single out CIA or NSA or become outraged or not at any one incident. Geesh, there are dozens of agencies just like them that could be doing the same thing, and it's playing whack-a-mole. We need a reform of Congressional oversight, along with clear criminal laws about what can be gathered or not gathered. These agencies need guidance and oversight, not political posturing and outrage. (Although I'm never one to turn down politicians bloviating on issues I care about).
higherpurpose 13y ago
Why did they change the title? Are they trying to promote Feinstein or something?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mullingitover 13y ago
This whole story is so Kafkaesque. The Intelligence committee is just doing a review of the CIA's torture practices, no big deal, largely for purposes of whitewashing the whole thing and sweeping it under the rug. But then the CIA did something unconscionable and lashed out at the committee, threatening them with being reported to the Justice Department. That's when a red line was crossed and they had no choice but to bring the CIA's horriffic moral crime (not torture, but fucking with the Senate) public.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's not what Kafkaesque means. Kafkaesque is something like Chicago's treatment of sex offenders: state law requires them to register yearly within a short window at the threat of violating probation, but the police close the registration office early because they're lazy. Its about lack of coordination and internal inconsistency, not malintent.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    This is the same Robert Eatinger who engineered the CIA torture cover up. It is exceedingly kind of you not to ascribe malintent in this case.
shutupalready 13y ago
Shouldn't a Congressional oversight committee have access to everything at the CIA? Therefore it should be impossible to accuse the committee of improper access since it's their right.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Yeah, they should, except for that pesky 4th amendment, where the committee fucked up what not getting the FISA court to rubber stamp it. Though the committee could counter that because the information could cross outside of the USA that it's really foreign information anyway and thus doesn't require a warrant.
chimeracoder 13y ago
This hypocrisy makes me physically sick. Feinstein has been one of the biggest apologists[0] for violations of civil liberties, government surveillance, and (both) executive and judicial overreach. Suddenly, the tables are turned on her (however briefly) and she's not so happy with the way it feels. Call me a cynic, but I'll wait to feel sorry for her until she actually backtracks on all of these despicable practices. [0] Actually, I don't think it's even fair to say that - she's been a downright advocate of a whole number of nasty practices.
- sitkack 13y ago
  The only way for politicians to act is for them to be personally harmed. They don't represent us, they represent themselves. Same thing with Angela Merkel, she didn't even address the Snowden documents until they showed that her phone had been tapped, every German except her? No problem!
  - grej 13y ago
    You would think that these organizations would realize that and at least leave their apologists alone, lest they risk something like this occurring. The fact that they would go this far with one of their biggest allies only goes to show how little respect they have for any kind of legal constraints on their mission.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Feinstein is as corrupt as they come. She was probably holding her intel seat as leverage to get what she wanted from the MIC... I wouldn't be surprised if she was targeted because she was a conniving blocker who was using the position to her own personal advantage and the intel community wanted leverage over her position.
      - camus2 13y ago
        > I wouldn't be surprised if she was targeted because she was a conniving blocker It makes total sense!you may be close to the truth here.
icpmacdo 13y ago
But really who cares. Nothing is going to change
- pekk 13y ago
  No point in anything: no point in oversight, no point in the government, no point in waking up in the morning...
rdl 13y ago
What happened, did she finally realize the political winds were against her so speaking out against CIA was a good move? She's been one of NSA's staunchest supporters to date. Is there a big split between CIA and NSA in her mind? There really isn't in reality -- one of the biggest post-9/11 changes is that the "intelligence community" actually acts like a community; even the FBI CT guys aren't viewed too badly by NSA/CIA/JSOC IME.
ryoshu 13y ago
This reminds me of The Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."
suprgeek 13y ago
Spy on Others (Regular People) - it makes us safer. Spy on me (Rich Senator who is becoming richer) - it is an OUTRAGE! These congress critters really need to be a bit more nuanced in their double standards. This is the same person that publicly accused Ed Snowden of Treason [1]. So when we got to know about Large scale spying on the entire American Public for NO Reason - the person who told us about it is a traitor. When they learned about a SPECIFIC case of spying on their staffers there is sudden (manufactured) outrage? I think she senses the public mood & is trying to use this issue to slink back into "of the people by the people" mode. Real Slimy. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304...
- trevoragilbert 13y ago
  The "of the people by the people" mode tends to happen during election years, so a bit surprising that she's speaking like this now.
- JamisonM 13y ago
  I agree with the sentiment but I also recognize that there is a difference between the CIA/NSA spying on citizens and doing the same to congress in a possible effort to directly influence the laws and regulations that govern their behaviour. I do not think that the outrage is "manufactured" because I think it is genuine, the smarter among the Senate that support the surveillance state at least understand the principles involved here.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    What rights do our legislators have that the citizenry does not?
    - nickff 13y ago
      Here is one: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America: "The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same...."
DavidSJ 13y ago
I knew someone who had a vicious dog. Over the years, that dog attacked, sometimes seriously injuring, dozens of people and other animals. One day, the dog bit off the tip of the owner's finger, unprovoked. He was put down shortly thereafter.
Torgo 13y ago
Solution: retroactively legalize the spying, create a legal framework to continue doing so. They need to accept that less privacy is the cost of legislating in a free country. It's called keeping America safe.
junto 13y ago
And... cue the 'accidental death' or 'heart attack out of the blue. Movie land of course, not 'real' life.
runamok 13y ago
> Feinstein "accused the Central Intelligence Agency of improperly removing documents from computers that committee staff members had been using to complete a report on the agency’s detention program, saying the move was part of an effort to intimidate the committee." This sounds like an elderly person that does not understand computers. A staffer probably misplaced a file and cried "CIA". Although I revel in the fact that ubiquitous spying bothers her when she is the target I'm not convinced she knows what she is talking about. Also note this happened in 2010 so it just sounds like an excuse for her to make a political about face in the face of pressure about the NSA.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Is she really this daft? I mean, really, why does she think they can provide oversight of agencies whose purpose is to secretly collect intelligence, intercept communications, etc.? And, she relies on them to provide the information for their own oversight, yet sees nothing wrong with that? So, she's shocked that some files were moved. Did it occur to her that she wouldn't have known something was being withheld if the CIA had never provided them in the first place? For that matter, does she ever wonder if perhaps massive amounts of information are routinely withheld? Strong whistleblower laws are quite possibly the only true means of effective oversight. Yet, she seems to be too busy calling Snowden a traitor to consider that salient point.
puppetmaster3 13y ago
The person I hate the most living today or ever: Feinstein.
Cowicide 13y ago
Feinstein... Yet another corporatist appeasing political hack that has as much self-awareness as she does ethics.
alrs 13y ago
NSA/FBI have an ongoing rivalry with the CIA. There is no incongruity in attacking CIA while protecting NSA.
nikdaheratik 13y ago
The CIA starts pulling Nixon level shenanigans and the general response is ZOMG Feinstein is such a hypocrite? The way this works is: 1) The CIA violated the law under Bush II by torturing, but was allowed to get away with it because, politics. 2) The people in Congress who want to nail them on this spend the next 5-10 years searching through 5 million records while the CIA spends as much time as they can stalling them. 3) They finally hit the mother load in a document that shows the people running the CIA know about these legal issues 5 years ahead of the committee. 4) People in the CIA freak, try to hide the documents, and then try and get to the DOJ ahead of the committee. Because, as soon as the DOJ is involved, the game is over since they either have to plead the 5th or get caught up in Obstruction of Justice charges. This is all separate from the NSA spying stuff, which Feinstein is wrong on. But it's not even hypocritical for her to say "spying is okay, but torture is bad news for Democracy." Given a choice between the two, I'd still rather be spied on for no reason, than tortured for no reason.
wmeredith 13y ago
Holy shit there's a lot of character attacks in this thread. She may be a scumbag, but what she's saying is right. If the CIA is spying domestically and intimidating/hacking its oversight body, then it should be put down in favor of something else.
gathly 13y ago
It's like Merkel all over again. "what? you're spying on me too? well, that's wrong."
brianmcdonough 13y ago
Loves power when wielding it, hates its being wielded against. It's not hypocrisy. It's human.
acqq 13y ago
The video of the whole speech of Sen. Feinstein about CIA: http://youtu.be/GNhDDAhCXXE http://youtu.be/GNhDDAhCXXE The transcript: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-relea... Very good written, worth reading or watching.
mankypro 13y ago
Kewl. So it's ok to spy on The People, but Congress!?! Omfg you Nazis! How dare you!?!?!?!!?!!??

449 points by 001sky 13y ago

This is the same women who said "It’s called protecting America" when defending the NSA's gathering of phone call records. [0] So surveillance is good, but not when you're the person being surveilled? [0] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-ns...

rayiner 13y ago
This is an overly simplistic argument. It is not inconsistent to believe that it is a far greater danger for the executive to spy on a co-equal branch of government, in a way that acquires content, than when the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata. It's glib to say "oh, so Congressmen are more important than regular people?" but in at least certain ways, it's true. The dangers created in the two situations are quite different. You might have a different evaluation of the relative gravity of the dangers, you have to concede that they're different.
- Mc_Big_G 13y ago
  ...assuming you believe the "metadata" bullshit.
  - throwawayaway 13y ago
    There's been no proof that it is metadata, we are supposed to take liars at their word. Seems rayiner is willing to do so.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - chc 13y ago
      It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.
      - throwawayaway 13y ago
        accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?
      - throwawayaway 13y ago
        you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    For better or worse, the distinction between data and metadata is deeply ingrained in 4th amendment law, specifically Smith v. Maryland. And technology hasn't changed the rationale underlying that distinction either. Back in the day, addressing on the outside of an envelope was considered "metadata" and unprotected because you had to reveal that information to the third party for the mail to get routed, so had no expectation of privacy. This same reasoning applies perfectly well to the phone calls in the 1970's in Smith, or for that matter a cell phone call, and arguably TCP/IP headers, today.
    - throwawayaway 13y ago
      It's too much of a jump from one person being recorded without a warrant, to everyone being recorded without a warrant. That distinction hasn't changed at all.
    - shutupalready 13y ago
      My understanding is that the "Subject" line of emails are also considered metadata for the purpose of surveillance and warrantless information demands by police. Subject lines are clearly not needed for routing. There's feature creep (a.k.a. slippery slope) at work even for metadata.
      - chc 13y ago
        They're headers, which categorically tend to be viewed as metadata even by technologists. You're right that they aren't necessary for routing, but this is not exactly the government being slippery. Even where encryption is used, metadata — including the subject — tends to be sent in the clear.
        bashinator 13y ago
        They're MUA headers, not MTA headers. That's an important distinction; those headers are generated directly by the end-users' systems, rather than by the systems responsible for routing the mail around.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Ad ignorantiam is to argue that something is true because it has not been proven false. Walk me through how that applies to what I said?
- ameister14 13y ago
  Personally, I was more disturbed by the Director of National Intelligence perjuring himself before Senate committees and getting away with it. This I actually expected, and I think Feinstein did too; she seems really upset at her staff being threatened.
- throwwit 13y ago
  'Congressmen' were once 'people' too, is the counter-point I'd make.
spikels 13y ago
Yes - Feinstein has been awful on the NSA spying issue. So far there have been only two narrow issues that have bothered her all all: spying on her and spying on friendly foreign leaders. She has been one of the ruling elite for so long that she has lost the ability to see this issue from any other perspective. She needs to retire and enjoy the roughly $100 million she has acquired in a life of "public service".
- rhizome 13y ago
  The explanation I've seen for Feinstein's apparent two-facedness is that one of her bugaboos is torture. She started her speech with reference to the CIA's destruction of the videotapes documenting torture, and the documents affected by the CIA's actions here are concerned with the SSCI torture report. It just so happens that the current Outside General Counsel for the CIA, Robert Eatinger, is the lawyer who approved the torture tape destruction, and apparently his name is mentioned in the Torture Report 1,600 times for things such as referring SSCI torture investigators to the DOJ for investigation as a method of intimidation.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Correction: OGC is actually "Office of General Counsel," not "Outside."
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Her husband is a wealthy investment banker. It's not inconceivable that he made more because of her connections, but $100m doesn't seem crazy unusual for a "Chairman and President of an equity investment management firm" (as he is described on Wikipedia) over the course of his career. Attributing all of the moneymaking to her is profoundly incorrect without an allegation that her husband would have been unsuccessful but for her profession - which is possible but it's a claim that hasn't been proved and certainly deserves to be made explicit.
SDGT 13y ago
Also the same woman who would happily remove your right to protect yourself, but not hers.
00rion 13y ago
Sounds like this would make for a great movie script.
pekk 13y ago
So it is OK for CIA to defeat its own oversight?

bradleyy 13y ago

They don't have anything to hide, right? Why should they worry about being surveilled? We need to fight terrorism wherever it is, even in Congress. Right?

vertr07 13y ago

Is anyone surprised by this?

addflip 13y ago
Not at all.
mayneack 13y ago
I'm shocked this is coming from Feinstein. She's been a big proponent of the CIA/NSA.
- zeruch 13y ago
  +1 I found both an odd irony and irked by the implication of "its ok to snoop on random citizens, but not on me"
rhizome 13y ago
You're being That Guy.
- vertr07 13y ago
  And so are you.

tptacek 13y ago

The backstory on this seems to be: in the process of compiling the Panetta report, staffers for the Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed a huge number of top-secret cables; the only place they were allowed to do that was in a CIA office building, on equipment provided by CIA. Somehow (another NYT story alludes), CIA came to believe that Senate Intelligence had gained access to more documents than intended, so they rifled through the computers they'd provided. (Even if this is what happened, it's still very bad; I don't understand how CIA gets to mess with its oversight committee in any way.)

forgotAgain 13y ago
hmmm, not to sure about the Panetta report part. I thought it was an internal CIA report ordered by Panetta while he ran the CIA. The oversight committee became interested in it because it supposedly confirmed transgressions that the CIA was simultaneously denying to the committee. Somehow the committee came in possession of the report. The CIA is arguing that while viewing computer documents at the CIA,committee investigators hacked the CIA network and obtained the Panetta report.
bradleyjg 13y ago
The Times reported that the CIA created a special network share with the cables that the staffers were supposed to review, and that the staffers "had penetrated a firewall inside the C.I.A. computer system that had been set up to separate the committee’s work area from other agency digital files". That sounds overblown to me. The SSCI committee hires from the same general pool as the rest of the Hill -- ambitious PoliSci grads, lawyers, and the like. They pay the same crappy wages too. They aren't getting Kevin Mitnick. My guess is that some incompetent windows admin didn't set the permissions right and they were able to click on network neighborhood and access the files in question.
- bdamm 13y ago
  Maybe - but remember, we're talking about the CIA. My encounters with anyone potentially related to the agency has been that they're quite competent, to say the least. When considering an agency such as the CIA, it's safe to say that incompetence only occurs in areas where competence is not a priority, incompetence is on purpose, or where the situation is beyond the competence of anyone. So my guess is they applied little care to the oversight committee and handed them a sheet of what not to do, such as attempt to browse external web sites. The staffers did so anyway, and now are "penetrating" the firewall that didn't even exist except on paper. The agency now has a reason to restrain activities of oversight staffers that they didn't have before (for violating policy).

chiph 13y ago

Wait wait - I thought she likes the CIA/NSA?

nkoren 13y ago
She likes it when they spy on other people.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't think it's crazy to consider targeted surveillance of their oversight body as being more of a problem than dragnet surveillance.
charlesism 13y ago
"I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

CWuestefeld 13y ago

See higher-ranked report at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7379236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7379236

qwerty_asdf 13y ago

The technical details for this brouhaha, if I'm interpreting them correctly, sound like they might approach Dilbert levels of managerial incompetence. From Saturday's NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/politics/behind-clash-between-cia-and-congress-a-secret-report-on-interrogations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/politics/behind-clash-b... The room designated for the staff, called the “electronic reading room,” was a spartan office with tables and computers set against the walls and a large conference table in the middle. ... According to a recent court filing in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the C.I.A. created a “network share drive” segregated from the main agency network, a provision intended to allow the committee to work in private. ... It is unclear how or when committee investigators obtained parts of the Panetta review. One official said that they had penetrated a firewall inside the C.I.A. computer system that had been set up to separate the committee’s work area from other agency digital files, but exactly what happened will not be known until the Justice Department completes its inquiry. ... By then, C.I.A. officials had come to suspect that committee investigators working at the Virginia facility had seen at least a version of the internal review. Senior officials at the agency ordered a search of several years’ worth of digital audit logs that the C.I.A. uses to monitor its computer systems. So, based on that very vague description, I'm imagining someone set up an ad-hoc SharePoint server, dumped a bunch of PDFs and MS Office docs on a file system, and absent-mindedly left the C$ share open, and then maybe someone accessed the server as an SMB share, and it showed up in the event logs, and now it's snowballed into "ZOMG u 1337 h4ck3rz, u pwnt mai FIREWALLZ!!!1one" But never let a good disaster go to waste, right?

ConceptJunkie 13y ago
>The technical details for this brouhaha, if I'm interpreting them correctly, sound like they might approach Dilbert levels of managerial incompetence. One wonders what "Dilbert" would have been like if Scott Adams had worked for the government instead of a private company.
runamok 13y ago
Exactly. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

forgotAgain 13y ago

So the searching of Congressional computers supposedly happened in 2010. She's speaking about it now because she feels the CIA is threatening her committee by turning over the investigation to the Justice department (another Executive branch department). I know I should be outraged but really all I have is WTF. The head of the Senate oversight committee knew that the CIA had violated multiple laws and did absolutely nothing about it for 4 years. This is oversight? This is what we're all depending on to protect us from an out of control set of military / intelligence / industrial dicks?

pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
the only solution is rubble. burn it all to the ground.

_nullandnull_ 13y ago

>> Ms. Feinstein said she had sought an apology and an acknowledgment that the C.I.A.'s conduct was improper. This is on par with what a child would get disciplined with for cutting in the lunch line. If a civilian would have done this they would have been prosecuted with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and sentenced to 30 years in jail.

amckenna 13y ago

> The C.I.A. has referred the matter to the Justice Department to investigate possible wrongdoing, a move that Ms. Feinstein called “a potential effort to intimidate this staff.” What could the Justice Department do in the event that they found wrongdoing on the part of the Senate staff? Don't members of the Senate had immunity from this type of prosecution exactly to prevent this type of interference and intimidation?

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on! For those missing the reference, this is from the movie "Casablanca" It's an English idiom used when an official becomes conveniently outraged or overly surprised at something they had known was going on all along. The outrage expressed is a pro forma statement meant for public consumption -- it doesn't necessarily make sense if you examine it closely, and in fact can be quite funny given the context. There is a generic problem here: the legislature in the United States has decided that instead of overseeing the government, it was going to grant huge swaths of power to various agencies, then swoop in for various high-profile investigations when anything went wrong. That way they get to play the hero without actually having to do a lot of work. Well, the problem with this theory of separation of powers is that pretty soon you have dozens or hundreds of agencies, all without much adult supervision, all wanting to do more and more to "help". Without oversight, they turn to the next best thing: in-house legal advice, which tells them what is legal or not. So now we have multiple intelligence agencies doing things their lawyers say are legal, but the majority of the American people are pretty pissed about (or getting that way). The way to fix this is NOT to single out CIA or NSA or become outraged or not at any one incident. Geesh, there are dozens of agencies just like them that could be doing the same thing, and it's playing whack-a-mole. We need a reform of Congressional oversight, along with clear criminal laws about what can be gathered or not gathered. These agencies need guidance and oversight, not political posturing and outrage. (Although I'm never one to turn down politicians bloviating on issues I care about).

higherpurpose 13y ago

Why did they change the title? Are they trying to promote Feinstein or something?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mullingitover 13y ago

This whole story is so Kafkaesque. The Intelligence committee is just doing a review of the CIA's torture practices, no big deal, largely for purposes of whitewashing the whole thing and sweeping it under the rug. But then the CIA did something unconscionable and lashed out at the committee, threatening them with being reported to the Justice Department. That's when a red line was crossed and they had no choice but to bring the CIA's horriffic moral crime (not torture, but fucking with the Senate) public.

rayiner 13y ago
That's not what Kafkaesque means. Kafkaesque is something like Chicago's treatment of sex offenders: state law requires them to register yearly within a short window at the threat of violating probation, but the police close the registration office early because they're lazy. Its about lack of coordination and internal inconsistency, not malintent.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  This is the same Robert Eatinger who engineered the CIA torture cover up. It is exceedingly kind of you not to ascribe malintent in this case.

shutupalready 13y ago

Shouldn't a Congressional oversight committee have access to everything at the CIA? Therefore it should be impossible to accuse the committee of improper access since it's their right.

fleitz 13y ago
Yeah, they should, except for that pesky 4th amendment, where the committee fucked up what not getting the FISA court to rubber stamp it. Though the committee could counter that because the information could cross outside of the USA that it's really foreign information anyway and thus doesn't require a warrant.

chimeracoder 13y ago

This hypocrisy makes me physically sick. Feinstein has been one of the biggest apologists[0] for violations of civil liberties, government surveillance, and (both) executive and judicial overreach. Suddenly, the tables are turned on her (however briefly) and she's not so happy with the way it feels. Call me a cynic, but I'll wait to feel sorry for her until she actually backtracks on all of these despicable practices. [0] Actually, I don't think it's even fair to say that - she's been a downright advocate of a whole number of nasty practices.

sitkack 13y ago
The only way for politicians to act is for them to be personally harmed. They don't represent us, they represent themselves. Same thing with Angela Merkel, she didn't even address the Snowden documents until they showed that her phone had been tapped, every German except her? No problem!
- grej 13y ago
  You would think that these organizations would realize that and at least leave their apologists alone, lest they risk something like this occurring. The fact that they would go this far with one of their biggest allies only goes to show how little respect they have for any kind of legal constraints on their mission.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Feinstein is as corrupt as they come. She was probably holding her intel seat as leverage to get what she wanted from the MIC... I wouldn't be surprised if she was targeted because she was a conniving blocker who was using the position to her own personal advantage and the intel community wanted leverage over her position.
    - camus2 13y ago
      > I wouldn't be surprised if she was targeted because she was a conniving blocker It makes total sense!you may be close to the truth here.

icpmacdo 13y ago

But really who cares. Nothing is going to change

pekk 13y ago
No point in anything: no point in oversight, no point in the government, no point in waking up in the morning...

rdl 13y ago

What happened, did she finally realize the political winds were against her so speaking out against CIA was a good move? She's been one of NSA's staunchest supporters to date. Is there a big split between CIA and NSA in her mind? There really isn't in reality -- one of the biggest post-9/11 changes is that the "intelligence community" actually acts like a community; even the FBI CT guys aren't viewed too badly by NSA/CIA/JSOC IME.

ryoshu 13y ago

This reminds me of The Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."

suprgeek 13y ago

Spy on Others (Regular People) - it makes us safer. Spy on me (Rich Senator who is becoming richer) - it is an OUTRAGE! These congress critters really need to be a bit more nuanced in their double standards. This is the same person that publicly accused Ed Snowden of Treason [1]. So when we got to know about Large scale spying on the entire American Public for NO Reason - the person who told us about it is a traitor. When they learned about a SPECIFIC case of spying on their staffers there is sudden (manufactured) outrage? I think she senses the public mood & is trying to use this issue to slink back into "of the people by the people" mode. Real Slimy. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304...

trevoragilbert 13y ago
The "of the people by the people" mode tends to happen during election years, so a bit surprising that she's speaking like this now.
JamisonM 13y ago
I agree with the sentiment but I also recognize that there is a difference between the CIA/NSA spying on citizens and doing the same to congress in a possible effort to directly influence the laws and regulations that govern their behaviour. I do not think that the outrage is "manufactured" because I think it is genuine, the smarter among the Senate that support the surveillance state at least understand the principles involved here.
- bmelton 13y ago
  What rights do our legislators have that the citizenry does not?
  - nickff 13y ago
    Here is one: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America: "The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same...."

DavidSJ 13y ago

I knew someone who had a vicious dog. Over the years, that dog attacked, sometimes seriously injuring, dozens of people and other animals. One day, the dog bit off the tip of the owner's finger, unprovoked. He was put down shortly thereafter.

Torgo 13y ago

Solution: retroactively legalize the spying, create a legal framework to continue doing so. They need to accept that less privacy is the cost of legislating in a free country. It's called keeping America safe.

junto 13y ago

And... cue the 'accidental death' or 'heart attack out of the blue. Movie land of course, not 'real' life.

runamok 13y ago

> Feinstein "accused the Central Intelligence Agency of improperly removing documents from computers that committee staff members had been using to complete a report on the agency’s detention program, saying the move was part of an effort to intimidate the committee." This sounds like an elderly person that does not understand computers. A staffer probably misplaced a file and cried "CIA". Although I revel in the fact that ubiquitous spying bothers her when she is the target I'm not convinced she knows what she is talking about. Also note this happened in 2010 so it just sounds like an excuse for her to make a political about face in the face of pressure about the NSA.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Is she really this daft? I mean, really, why does she think they can provide oversight of agencies whose purpose is to secretly collect intelligence, intercept communications, etc.? And, she relies on them to provide the information for their own oversight, yet sees nothing wrong with that? So, she's shocked that some files were moved. Did it occur to her that she wouldn't have known something was being withheld if the CIA had never provided them in the first place? For that matter, does she ever wonder if perhaps massive amounts of information are routinely withheld? Strong whistleblower laws are quite possibly the only true means of effective oversight. Yet, she seems to be too busy calling Snowden a traitor to consider that salient point.

puppetmaster3 13y ago

The person I hate the most living today or ever: Feinstein.

Cowicide 13y ago

Feinstein... Yet another corporatist appeasing political hack that has as much self-awareness as she does ethics.

alrs 13y ago

NSA/FBI have an ongoing rivalry with the CIA. There is no incongruity in attacking CIA while protecting NSA.

nikdaheratik 13y ago

The CIA starts pulling Nixon level shenanigans and the general response is ZOMG Feinstein is such a hypocrite? The way this works is: 1) The CIA violated the law under Bush II by torturing, but was allowed to get away with it because, politics. 2) The people in Congress who want to nail them on this spend the next 5-10 years searching through 5 million records while the CIA spends as much time as they can stalling them. 3) They finally hit the mother load in a document that shows the people running the CIA know about these legal issues 5 years ahead of the committee. 4) People in the CIA freak, try to hide the documents, and then try and get to the DOJ ahead of the committee. Because, as soon as the DOJ is involved, the game is over since they either have to plead the 5th or get caught up in Obstruction of Justice charges. This is all separate from the NSA spying stuff, which Feinstein is wrong on. But it's not even hypocritical for her to say "spying is okay, but torture is bad news for Democracy." Given a choice between the two, I'd still rather be spied on for no reason, than tortured for no reason.

wmeredith 13y ago

Holy shit there's a lot of character attacks in this thread. She may be a scumbag, but what she's saying is right. If the CIA is spying domestically and intimidating/hacking its oversight body, then it should be put down in favor of something else.

gathly 13y ago

It's like Merkel all over again. "what? you're spying on me too? well, that's wrong."

brianmcdonough 13y ago

Loves power when wielding it, hates its being wielded against. It's not hypocrisy. It's human.

acqq 13y ago

The video of the whole speech of Sen. Feinstein about CIA: http://youtu.be/GNhDDAhCXXE http://youtu.be/GNhDDAhCXXE The transcript: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-relea... Very good written, worth reading or watching.

mankypro 13y ago

Kewl. So it's ok to spy on The People, but Congress!?! Omfg you Nazis! How dare you!?!?!?!!?!!??