
NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress - cklaus
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-bernie-sanders-members-congress
======
fiatmoney
They wiretapped all of Washington DC, "by accident", in an election year.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-
br...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-
privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-
finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html)

------
a3n
"Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons."

So, yes then.

------
rlx0x
The NSA is one of the most powerful organizations on this planet, and the only
people that could actually be kind of a threat to them, are members of
congress. So in other words: the only people on this planet, who have the
ability to do something against the total surveillance of the world... are
exempt from surveillance.

Who the fuck, would believe that?

~~~
Zigurd
Not only that, but with typical rates of addiction, adultery, domestic
violence, pedophilia, drunk-driving, tax cheating, etc. there is huge
potential to build a "caucus of the compromised." Perhaps enough to swing any
vote that needs swinging.

~~~
dllthomas
_" caucus of the compromised"_

Nice turn of phrase - some googling suggests it's original?

~~~
Zigurd
I'll take credit for it if it is in fact original. It did just pop out while
writing this.

------
coldcode
One thing that scares me about the NSA is that they are essentially a part of
the executive branch. Imagine what a president from either party could do with
that kind of power versus the other party or even just people they want to
destroy. Now who can stop this?

~~~
logicchains
The American people. Isn't this kind of thing the reason why your constitution
gives you guys guns? If a tyrant took over, if all else failed you could
always just shoot them.

~~~
nickff
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180....](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html#kjOhyeIwa2yo7uuL.99)

~~~
dllthomas
I recommend everyone read up on the context of that quote - the letter it was
from and the events it was regarding - rather than make assumptions.

------
BgSpnnrs
I hope that 'the Merkel effect' will be significant here, in that it was not
an issue until those with power were directly and obviously affected.

All too often it feels like 'the people' is a separate set to that of those in
positions of executive power, with a bit of luck the smart wording of Bernie
Sanders will ingratiate previously unbothered elements of the powers who can
actually do something about stuff.

That said, I don't think 'spy on everyone, except the powerful' is a step up,
if anything it's worse.

~~~
a3n
Not spying on Congress would be a step up though. Congress has oversite on the
NSA, not the other way around.

When the extent of the Snowden leaks became apparent, I called one of my
Senators, Udall. As I was speaking to the aide on the phone, I had a sudden,
horrible moment of clarity: This communication, _this very phone call_ , this
act of democracy being practiced between me and my Senator, was being
monitored, cataloged and analyzed by the NSA.

I was furious.

[[And, to the NSA spy reading this: Shame on you. Fucking shame on you.]]

~~~
kashkhan
Where would you draw the line on spying? Any american citizen is potentially a
criminal threatening the republic.

~~~
a3n
The people who wrote the Constitution drew the line at "specific suspicion."

Amendment IV
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE
PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

That's where I would draw the line.

------
Rogerh91
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-
obama...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-
obama_n_3473538.html)

"Russ Tice, a former intelligence analyst who in 2005 blew the whistle on what
he alleged was massive unconstitutional domestic spying across multiple
agencies, claimed Wednesday that the NSA had ordered wiretaps on phones
connected to then-Senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004.

Speaking on "The Boiling Frogs Show," Tice claimed the intelligence community
had ordered surveillance on a wide range of groups and individuals, including
high-ranking military officials, lawmakers and diplomats."

definition of irony

------
Theodores
I would like my British MP to ask in parliament if GCHQ are spying on members
of the U.S. Congress. This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to
do little favours for them to get around domestic spying laws.

I was thinking I just need to cut and paste the senator's question and get my
MP to ask it, however, does anyone here have any details to wording or other
ideas so that a weasel word response isn't all I get?

~~~
mpyne
> This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to do little favours
> for them to get around domestic spying laws.

It's just as illegal under U.S. law to have GCHQ do it for you as for NSA to
do it directly.

This is a well-discussed loophole already and the courts have already made
clear it's illegal.

E.g. you have a Fourth Amendment right to avoid having your postal mail (or
any other papers or effects) searched unreasonably. You do _not_ have a Fourth
Amendment right to avoid having your UPS parcel searched by UPS.

Does this mean that the government can simply tell UPS to open your UPS parcel
to evade the Fourth Amendment? It's not UPS's personal property so they have
no Fourth Amendment protection to the parcel. And you have no Fourth Amendment
protection from UPS.

But as it turns out once UPS acts under the direction and control of the
government, they also have to comply with the _strictures_ on the government.
So they cannot legally be made to violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of
the government.

The big catch is that a third party may voluntarily divulge information (e.g.
if they rip open your parcel by accident while throwing it out the truck on
Christmas Eve and a bomb spills out, they can tell the government). But they
can't do so on request of the government.

And so it is for GCHQ and NSA. GCHQ could conceivably tip off the NSA if they
happen to get evidence of a US person plotting a terrorist act (much like the
USA might tip off Germany to a German national, if it were discovered). But
the NSA can't ask GCHQ to deliver information on a US person. At least, not
legally, but if you're assuming the NSA will just break the law anyways you're
already screwed.

~~~
lstamour
If the five eyes already have information sharing agreements, doesn't it mean
that based on a tip from an NSA agent, a GCHQ agent (or Canadian, Australian,
NZ...) could investigate, and then the contents of that investigation could be
seen by the NSA under the sharing agreement? And it's okay because it's not
your data they're looking at, but the report on the data? Probably wrong here,
but it sounds just weasel-wordy enough to pass muster.

~~~
mpyne
I would imagine that, at best, a "report" (originated from abroad, mind) would
still get you at best something similar to parallel construction: Nothing
_really_ useful other than a specific tip to start a real investigation on a
specific person, which would require a warrant you can't yet get from FISC due
to lack of admissible evidence of probable cause.

Either way it's a very dangerous legal ground to walk on. Whatever else we can
say for NSA, they've been listening to their lawyers this time.

------
tptacek
It can't deny that. It is engaged in mass surveillance of US citizens. Members
of Congress use Google Mail just like everyone else. To deny that they may
have collected information on a Congressperson just sets them up for yet
another scandal.

Presented with that question, NSA gave the only answer it could possibly have
given, short of (once again) lying directly to Congress. That's not all that
interesting of a result.

~~~
samstave
Out of curiosity; what is the official mail system of the USG?

~~~
tptacek
I don't know; I won't work with USG IT. I know the DoD has their own system.

~~~
srl
> I won't work with USG IT

This may be none of anyone's business, but I'm curious enough to try asking
anyway: is this a moral objection of some sort, or something more mundane
(i.e. inconvenient regulatory burden)?

~~~
tptacek
Moral.

~~~
timsally
What specifically is your moral objection?

~~~
tptacek
I wrote a longer response a couple days ago but the outage ate it. :)

~~~
srl
IIRC (because I think "Moral" is likely to be misinterpreted by people reading
into it what they want) your response came down to "the moral landscape when
working with DOD and DHS in particular, is forbiddingly difficult to navigate,
so I've chosen to avoid them both - EPA et al I'd be happy to work with".

------
zacinbusiness
So let's say that the NSA says they will stop spying on us. Why should we
believe them?

~~~
salient
No, but friends of NSA like Mike Rogers have said in public that "he's not
worried about this spying, because NSA doesn't spy on him, because he's not a
'bad guy'".

Of course, I don't think even he believes that, because he knows exactly what
NSA is doing, but it's good to know _for a fact_ that NSA _does_ spy on US
Congress, too. Maybe this information will make the undecided politicians to
take the right side.

------
spoiledtechie
I really hate that this senator cares about only himself being wiretapped.
Rather than caring about his constituents. This is the kind of selfish
behavior that is appalling.

~~~
hyperbovine
Actually Sanders is generally one of the less execrable members of that august
body. His letter ([http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-to-
nsa](http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-to-nsa)) makes it
abundantly clear that he's very alarmed about NSA spying on all Americans.
This letter indicates a _tactic_ meant to stoke other legislators' outrage
ahead of the upcoming Congress, as opposed to a _strategy_ of opposing NSA
spying specifically on lawmakers.

------
hardwaresofton
I'd hate to be one of the congress members that this took by surprise
(assuming there ARE any that actually did not know) -- you'd be quickly made
aware of your lack of power.

------
x0054
The way the question was asked by Sanders, the answer would be necessarily
YES. Of course, the NSA can not answer YES, because [insert mention of 9/11
and national security argument here, wave a flag, if possible, while doing
so], so they did the next best thing, made a lengthy statement that states
absolutely nothing.

------
puppetmaster3
Are you saying that a they would use that for political power and not
'security of the state'?

Shocking, shocking I say /s.

------
f_salmon
> Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons.

In other words: almost none to zero.

------
codex
The real question is: has an human looked at Congressional metadata, or are
they likely to do so? This question was not asked because, given the data
protections in place, the answer is likely no.

~~~
betterunix
How is that the real question? The potential abuses are enormous even if no
human has looked at the metadata yet. What if there is a vote next month to
reduce the NSA's funding -- might the metadata be examined _then_ , just to
see if any congressmen are having affairs? What if Senator Wyden tries to run
for president in 2016 -- might the NSA take a look at who he's been talking
to?

The fact that the data is being stored at all is cause for concern.

