

Sen. Wyden imagines the White House is willing to reconsider surveillance - j_baker
http://rt.com/usa/nsa-surveillance-wyden-snowden-021/

======
gnosis
There was an article on the BBC site recently about a spy program during WW2
that consisted of pampering high-ranking German POW's in a mansion while
British agents listened in through bugging devices.

Apparently, the program worked wonderfully, and they got a lot of useful
intelligence out of it. However, word somehow got out that German prisoners
there were being treated like royalty while the British public starved. There
was outrage in Parliament, and Churchill ordered the program shut down.

British intelligence pretended to follow Churchill's orders, but actually
continued the program in secret. The information they were getting was just
too useful. They just stopped telling Churchill about it.

I expect something similar might happen here. To the public's knowledge, to
most of Congress, and maybe even to Obama, the program might appear to be shut
down. But it'll either continue wholesale or morph in to something else that's
effectively the same (or even worse).

Unfortunately, there really is no way to verify the words of these spy
agencies. Virtually no one has the clearance to go inside their datacenters
and check. Now they'll probably just be a lot more careful about keeping what
they do secret.

Remember that the NSA is far from the only secret agency in the US. For a long
time its very existence was denied. The running joke in Washington was that
"NSA" stood for "No Such Agency". Eventually, its existence was confirmed. But
there are probably dozens if not hundreds of other secret agencies that
operate under the so-called "black budget" that Congress authorizes. Who knows
what they do? Something like PRISM could easily migrate to one or more of
them.

~~~
grovulent
Very good point - but at least it won't be as easy for them to do it. These
NSA activities require the co-operation and silence of a lot of different
entities - and that would be much harder to obtain if they don't have legal
standing.

Plus - if you get caught going against the executive and the congress - you'll
eventually lose your funding.

Having said that - I tend to agree with the comments above suggesting that the
executive will just rename it all and try and make the story go away while
actually ramping up the program.

~~~
gnosis
As far as funding goes, I heard an interesting program[1] recently on History
Counts[2] which claimed that the CIA was covertly funding its own operations
in Southeast Asia through drug trafficking.[3][4]

In comparison, the wholesale spy program that's been in the news recently has
far more potential for profit through economic espionage, blackmail, and
various types of political manipulation. It could easily be self-financing if
the information gathered through it was exploited.

This program is a proverbial goose laying golden eggs for the government. I
really can not imagine them closing it down over a bit of bad press (which
will probably die down and blow over as soon as the next big scandal hits).

[1] -
[http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027](http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/30027)

[2] -
[http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts](http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/History+Counts)

[3] - A small excerpt:

Q: _" Through the drug profits, were these operations essentially self-
financing?"_

A: _" Everything in the Far East was self-financing"_

Q: _" And they were off the books, so there was no public record or
accounting?"_

A: _" Of course I'm speculating here, because no one has done me the favor of
showing me the CIA's books, but I think when we get to the scale of a 35,000
man army in Laos in the 1960's -- Congress found out about that and held
hearings in to it and were complaining they've never been told about it, so I
assume all of that was financed by the drug traffic than it was -- whatever
input there was from the CIA's legitimate budget was minimal compared to what
was happening... that was built up continuously from the 1950's"_

[4] - I'm not saying I believe in this particular conspiracy theory. I've
really not looked in to this subject beyond this one History Counts show. But
I could see something like it happening, and the current mood is one where
such conspiracy theories are starting to look more probable than usual.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Exactly. With the access to information that the NSA has they could easily
feed themselves, and may already do so to some extent.

PS WRT CIA funding things in Southeast Asia, there was a movie _Air America_
about that. I have no idea how close to the truth any of it was, but I liked
the movie.

------
sage_joch
If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then
our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of
those in charge.

~~~
baddox
Of course, laws don't enforce themselves, so unless you're doing it yourself,
you're always relying on the "generosity" of someone with power to enforce
laws.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Well, what we're relying upon is the integrity of those gov't officials
involved, especially the courts, strength of whistleblower protections, and
the press. All have IMO abdicated their constitutional responsibility.

~~~
D9u
I agree... I seem to recall a time when "yellow journalism" was frowned upon,
yet recently it's about all we've seen from the mainstream media.

------
genwin
Translation: Obama is getting hammered by wealthy people harmed by the PRISM
backlash. He'll consider renaming the surveillance programs.

~~~
lurkinggrue
Like how Total Information Awareness went away in 2003:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office)

~~~
mitchty
This is basically my worry as well, these programs aren't going away, they'll
just get hidden better.

What recourse exactly do we have? It seems like states secrets have gone
overboard exactly like everyone has feared. What can we as a populace do when
our courts have this legal concept enshrined in case law?

~~~
genwin
Few people are willing to do what it takes: ostracize everyone who supports
it, and boycott the supporting businesses.

In WA state a turning point for gay marriage was
[http://whosigned.org/](http://whosigned.org/): "Coming soon: A Facebook
application that helps you find people in your friend list who may have signed
Referendum 71 [against gay marriage]".

------
pvnick
I'll believe it when I see it. Also, someone broke the law. We need to demand
prosecution or the program will simply be renamed and moved on to a different
budget.

~~~
zepolud
There is no way to "see it."

Those were secret programs justified by secret laws written by secret courts.
The whole system has gone so far already that a negative proof is impossible
in the current legal framework. There is simply no credible way anymore an
official could present evidence of the absence of mass surveillance.

~~~
chris_mahan
The only way to be sure is for Congress to cut the funding for the NSA to
zero. Of course, others would spring up, but they would think twice, knowing
that getting busted gets you the boot.

Putting the director of the NSA behind bars for 25 years would also act as a
deterrent for future would-be spy-on-americans-is-ok directors of whatever
agencies.

~~~
D9u
I agree.

The director of NSA who lied about the capabilities of the program needs to be
prosecuted for perjury.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Except that he was hired, and the last one was fired, precisely because of his
willingness to grow the NSA thusly.

~~~
D9u
Rather than lying about anything and claiming "state secrets," he should have
said, "No comment," or "I can neither confirm, nor deny."

To purposefully perjure oneself before the entire nation is inexcusable.

------
foobarbazqux
Better title: The propaganda arm of an enemy state reports that a politician
in our state said that the head of our state is considering ending a
surveillance program that would be completely unremarkable in the enemy state,
at least according to the propaganda arm of our state.

~~~
codyb
Exactly what I though, although perhaps not as strongly. But yes, the headline
seems misleading to me as well. There is nothing from Obama at all in this
article, just Senator Wyden saying that he _imagines_ the White House is
_willing to reconsider_ the surveillance policies.

------
jlgaddis
FTA: "Sen. Wyden said he imagines the White House is willing to reconsider the
current surveillance policies ..."

That's just a little bit different from what the headline would lead you to
believe.

~~~
sigzero
Holy s. That is 100% not what the headline says.

------
ceejayoz
Ending, or ending and restarting with a new name so they can say "That program
was discontinued" without lying?

~~~
canadiancreed
I picture exactly this happening. "Oh Trendstone? Yes that project was
shelved. It's now called Blackbriar, but as you didn't ask that, so we wont'
tell you it's the same thing with a different name."

~~~
grbalaffa
Just like when Steve Ballmer claimed[1] that "Vista has never been delayed"
because they changed the name.[2]

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-
extra-...](http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-09-25/online-extra-steve-
ballmer-shrugs-off-the-critics)

[2] [http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-
vista-l...](http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2008/hasta-la-vista-
longhorn-how-microsoft-explained-name-change-employees-partners)

------
tlrobinson
Alternatively: "Obama considers preserving, protecting and defending the
Constitution of the United States."

~~~
genwin
Which he swore an oath to do, lest he become an enemy of it.

------
adamcanady
To those saying "I'll believe it when I see it" and the like - I do think that
statements like this should be taken with a grain of salt. The most important
part of this, however, is that we are seeing that the US administration is
actually continuing the conversation on these programs and not just insisting
that they're legal.

I think this is an important step in the right direction, and we need to keep
pressing the issue and not just focus on where Edward Snowden is in the world.

------
easy_rider
I bet the NSA internal branding dept. will have a tough time coming up with
clever names for the new programs. Maybe something in the lines of FOCUS or
LIGHTSABRE ;)

But seriously, these govt. programs have been closed and restarted under so
many new codenames in the past, it's really tough to believe this. And even if
it will happen, how will we find the trust? Closing down PRISM etc will be an
admission of wrongdoing, and the subsequent lying about it. And the 'weasel'
wording like Snowden mentioned; the distinction they make in wiretapping
between 'information aggregation' and actually looking into it. Which
obviously is the most absurd justification as all arguments against
wiretapping still apply with this concept.

With this kind of mindset, one must think they will just restart the programs
and make them even more covert, not?

~~~
erichurkman
If we're being cynical, the administration can just announce an "organized"
shutdown and give a timeline, say 2 years. All government projects are delayed
at least 50%, so let's say 4 years (government math). Four years from now a
new president will be in office and can blissfully ignore the timeline and re-
open the projects. Look at how long it took to exit Iraq, or how long it's
taking to exit Afghanistan, or how long it's taking to shutter Guantanamo.

Hell, if Guantanamo is any indication, the executive will blame the
legislative for not passing laws allowing them to shutter the program, and the
legislative will blame the executive for not closing the program down. Blame
goes in a circle and the populace gets screwed.

~~~
easy_rider
Sad but true. If those who in the end are responsible for allowing
unconstitutional or straight-up criminal actions by government appointed
commissions not being held accountable after they are relieved of their
function, the justice system is evidently corrupt, and we could expect
anything to happen.

Yet, I'm really sad these days, for common sense is being ridiculed, and only
a minority seems to notice. If you don't agree with absurd infringements of
your privacy : you are not a patriot; if you are not a patriot then you are a
traitor. I know it's a bit black/white, but these kind of speeches are
reminiscent to that kind of status quo:

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live
in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security
greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said
during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of
the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

------
coldcode
It would like an Oriental Rug dealer in my area, who constantly has a going
out of business sale, only to open with a new name next year.

~~~
lcampbell
That sounds more like tax evasion, using business bad debts[1]: the rug store
is owned by a parent corporation from whom the property is leased (and/or
which provides other goods/services, like the rugs themselves). A rate is
charged in excess of the store's profit such that the store is in debt to the
parent corp when the store goes out of business. The parent corporation makes
off with the profits, offset by the tax break from dissolving the partner's
debts.

Then again, I have no idea how taxes work and can't help but view everything
pessimistically :(

\--

[1]
[http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html](http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html)

------
tswartz
A big issue is that after all these revelations it is clear that the NSA and
other branches of government has not been transparent. The trust has eroded
and it's hard to take Obama at face value when he says he may end or reduce
these programs. They can easily just change them around. I'm hesitant to say
it, but more congressional oversight is needed in this area.

~~~
canadiancreed
I wonder if Congress didn't support such matters in the first place.

~~~
tswartz
I feel like Congress must have known what was going on. Washington is all
about using secrets as political currency. I find it hard to believe that so
many politicians had no idea. Most likely trying to deflect negative public
reaction.

------
vor_
The Senator merely said he has "a feeling" that the administration is
concerned about bulk phone records collection. As of yet, there's no
definitive confirmation that this is true.

------
brudgers
Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too.

That ending surveillance requires consideration indicates the probable outcome
at the end of that consideration. The historic precedent for an agency
unfettered with regard to building dossiers on citizens is Hoover's FBI. His
files included elected politicians. I suspect it is naive to suppose that
there is not a big file on each member of the executive branch.

~~~
mpyne
> Obama considered closing Guantanamo, too.

Then he ran headlong into that Article I side of the government and had his
ass handed back to him.

------
rosser
This appears to be speculation on Wyden's part. It's my fervent hope that he's
right, but I see no reason to believe this is anything more than hope on his
part, as well.

------
Spooky23
It's easy to tell if this actually happens -- you'll see massive layoffs of IT
people when the top secret clouds dissipate.

~~~
joering2
Exactly. Will be interesting to see Obama shutting down the NSA program, while
some other official will be cutting the ribbon in Utah in three months from
now.

[http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-
data-080...](http://news.yahoo.com/utah-home-nsas-mega-warehouse-
data-080502716.html)

------
ameister14
This is politics. In the short term, the politician gets a boost from being
associated with this and the perception if his having influenced Obama. In the
long term, even if nothing happens you won't remember his involvement because
Obama is mentioned and has a much bigger name.

It's well done, but it's just political posturing.

------
canadiancreed
That it says "considered" and not "will be revoked immediately" is incredibly
telling.

------
fnordfnordfnord
I'd be surprised. Most people seem not to care. It doesn't strike me that
there would be a political advantage. I don't think that Democrats would
suddenly turn Republican since the Republicans are at least as bad on
authoritarianism and spying.

I'm getting the vibe that it may destroy world consumption of American
electronics and software, but those birds have flown. I can't see us regaining
any credibility on that issue any time soon. The only saving grace is the
involvement of practically every other Western government.

But, I would certainly welcome such a development.

------
D9u
I'm nitpicking here, but I thought that Microsoft was based in Redmond, WA.

(from the article) _how Microsoft worked hand-in-hand with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in order to ensure that law enforcement could bypass
encryption mechanisms and easily listen-in and watch conversations conducted
over Silicon Valley giant’s Outlook.com chat portal and Skype messaging
platform._

I'm not from California (been there twice,) and I've lived in Washington
state, but is Microsoft considered to be a "Silicon Valley giant?"

------
tootie
We've fallen into a trap where no one will believe the program is over
regardless of what he says, so he gets no benefit from actually doing it.

~~~
klausjensen
...Other than doing the right thing. But then again, it seems that stopped
mattering long ago (Guantanamo, wars etc).

------
lucb1e
Sure he is. After all this negative publicity, how could he not be saying
that? Even seriously considering it or just doing it, even if it were just to
save his own ass. It doesn't matter what impact on security it has really.
Either surveillance is not important for national security, or it's beneficial
for himself to stop it. It might be either of the two, we don't know.

------
gfodor
Honestly the only way this will happen is as long as there is a Democrat in
the White House. No, not because Democrats are better on privacy, but because
the only thing Republicans love more than voting in draconian policies to
fight "terror" is voting on anything that makes Obama look bad.

------
perlpimp
burden of the proof will be on the president as trust is now gone, at least of
those who were paying attention. proof has to be quite extraordinary -
otherwise it might be construed as dismantling and hiding said programs even
more. Or augmenting their visibility.

------
sigzero
Obama promised that when he was running for President. Sorry, I don't believe
him.

------
inzax
I'll believe it when I see it. Oh wait, its top secret. I guess I'll never
believe it or even trust the government on this matter.

------
gesman
If Clinton would say "I am considering ending relationship with Monica
Lewinsky" \- that would sound much less ridiculous ...

------
mtgx
According to Obama "everything was legal". I don't buy it, but if we assume
that what he said was true, then it doesn't matter what he does until the laws
themselves get repealed.

~~~
mpyne
You would want to go further and actually have laws passed to make metadata
collection and foreign surveillance illegal (or at least more strictly
controlled) since otherwise they'd still be legal after repealing FISA and its
amendments. And then go further along with repealing the odious portions of
the USA PATRIOT Act.

------
pvdm
If you believe this then you believe in "hope" and "change".

------
D9u
What pisses me off is that the only reason any of the politicians are even
considering the repeal of any domestic surveillance is because of "blowback."

What about doing the right thing?

What about our Bill of Rights?

What about that fabled "Moral High Ground?"

------
x0054
I'll believe it when there is a signed pardon for Snowden! So... Never.

------
linohh
Oh, that's a good one. Time to create a new Three Letter Agency.

------
fortepianissimo
This doesn't change anything as long as FISA is the same.

------
medde
Is that until the next whistle-blower shows up?

------
joshuaheard
Just like he promised in his 2008 campaign.

------
clientbiller
"ending"

------
samstave
So just getting this newsbyte out into the zeitgeist is really what they want.
Put out this little sentence - let people latch onto it and carry on as
normal.

