
NSA Cheerleaders Discover Value of Privacy Only When Their Own Is Violated - bainsfather
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/30/spying-on-congress-and-israel-nsa-cheerleaders-discover-value-of-privacy-only-when-their-own-is-violated/
======
nickpsecurity
The thing that bothers me is that they should've already made this connection.
That's due to the same precedent the media should be all over: J Edgar Hoover.
Hoover pushed for greater power for FBI, including surveillance, to combat the
communist threat. They encouraged people everywhere to tip them off with
innocent people often being harassed. Sound familiar post-9/11?

Anyway, Hoover decided surveillance power had a better use: digging up dirt on
politicians, media people, judges, whoever. This was back when FBI agents had
to physically tap phone wires or sit outside your house. Nonetheless, with
very little capabilities, he got enough dirt to blackmail Congress into
increasing his power and reign for decades. So, one person already took
control of Congress via unlawful use of surveillance.

Now, we have an agency that can spy on everyone and everything simultaneously
with algorithms looking for juiciest tidbits? And Congress doesn't see how
this could be bad for them? Even one rogue group with unlogged access to the
collection tech could get enough dirt on key committees probably in weeks to
months. Whole NSA could be honest except them and still a huge threat to
democracy.

This is why I argue that we need to push Congress and business elites to roll
back government surveillance while constantly reminding them of J Edgar Hoover
precedent. I was sure they'd be spying on at least some of Congress. Articles
like this only make our claims stronger. Keep asking them if they want to be
working for NSA employees with copies of incriminating messages, photos, or
meetups? Or do they want to keep their power over their own fiefdoms?

Gotta be in their self-interest and risks they understand. Like blackmail and
how dots can be connected between them and lobbyists financiers.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_The thing that bothers me is that they should 've already made this
connection._

It bothers me, too. But I'm not even mildly surprised.

Look also at the historical record of Prohibition. There's no escaping the
parallel between that and the modern (failed) War On Drugs. Prohibition caused
huge suffering, and endless societal problems, and much of it was cured after
the 21st Amendment. One needs to be quite stupid not to see the parallels.

Maybe they're not so stupid, though. While Prohibition was quite damaging to
the nation as a whole, it was a blessing to the few who were in a position
(and of sufficiently flexible morals) to capitalize on it. This was the
foundation for the power of many, including (implicated by circumstantial
evidence) the Kennedies.

I don't think it would be surprising if some of the less scrupulous understand
the risks, but think that they can ride the tiger well enough themselves to
make hay (and mix metaphors!) from it.

~~~
nickpsecurity
You actually have a good point. Just financially speaking, many promoters of
NSA have stock or campaign contributions tied to defence contracts. They do
better when DOD corruption is higher.

Also the power networks to considet but they're harder to map. Finally,
there's image benefits for looking like one's taking action on terrorism.

------
mwsherman
This is not hard to understand. Gov’t officials believe that the work they do
is different in kind. This is a philosophical belief. The desire to be in
government requires this belief to a greater or lesser degree.

So the idea that citizens should be monitored, but not gov’t officials, is
intuitive from this point of view. A variation on diplomatic immunity, if you
will.

It’s not irrational or uncommon. I happen to disagree with it as much as a
human possibly can. But one can understand the position.

~~~
bitchypat
>But one can understand the position.

It is perhaps understandable in a communist dictatorship, but how exactly is
that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives
of their constituents, they do not work for anyone except their constituents.
And 'work' is imprecise verbiage - they serve. Undermining the constitutional
freedoms of the people they serve is far from an understandable position for
any elected person.

Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?

~~~
dwc
> Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your
> representatives?

Now, now, let's not be like that. You do NOT have to agree with something to
try understanding someone else's point of view or thought processes.

 _Understanding_ a point of view gives you a better chance of bringing someone
around. Also, this isn't limited to politicians. Almost any form of authority,
public or private, comes with the same attitudes. Think prosecutorial immunity
and the like. Or how some company management views things. There's usually a
fair amount of "the ends justifying the means" in there somewhere.

~~~
mwsherman
Yes, this is what I was getting at. Understand the problem first. To merely
disapprove does nothing to change anyone’s mind.

------
HillRat
Ah, schadenfreude at work:

Pete Hoekstra: Obama Stopping Key Surveillance Programs Dec 11, 2015

Pete Hoekstra: New Spying Scandal Biggest of Obama's Presidency 13 hours ago

Not that Hoekstra is going to change his tune on surveillance; he just
believes in the national security state for thee, not me. I've always felt
that one of the more corrupt aspects of the UK security state was the
exemption granted to Parliament from the kinds of intrusions other citizens
lack protections against; now I expect Hoekstra and the other surveillance
cheerleaders to try and carve out the same privileges for Congress.

~~~
arethuza
I'm sure that neither GCHQ or the Security Service would _dream_ of directly
spying on their political masters - the NSA will be doing it and they'll get
to share some of the results.

~~~
jacquesm
> I'm sure that neither GCHQ or the Security Service would dream of directly
> spying on their political masters - the NSA will be doing it and they'll get
> to share some of the results.

Well, only because they don't have to. I'm sure that they will be more than
happy to provide the reverse service in return.

------
csandreasen
To put this into perspective, it's worth noting that this was an issue of
almost unprecedented contention between the US and Israel over whether or not
to lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for nuclear disarmament. What
Israel does to advance its foreign policy objectives is definitely within the
purview of a foreign intelligence agency, and in this case the Israeli
government was very actively lobbying congress. It seems pretty clear to me
that the goal was to find out what Israel was doing, not spy on Congress.

The folks over at Lawfare had a much different breakdown of the issue:
[https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-do-conservatives-suddenly-
so...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-do-conservatives-suddenly-sound-
intercept-over-nsa)

Relevant quote:

Was the activity properly disclosed to the intelligence committees? Actually,
NSA’s behavior with respect to Israel appears to have been briefed to
Congress, as one would hope. “Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran
without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their
surveillance, _with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving
on congressional intelligence committees”_ (emphasis added).

------
HashThis
People should really understand how revolting what is happening. Watch the
congressman indignant about spying on Israel. What is happening here is that
they are putting the privacy of a foreign country higher than US citizens.
Politicians and the establishment actively force privileges for a PRIVILEGED
CLASS.

They treat foreign countries and corporations as being more important that US
citizens. People need to see that there are fundamental problems with the
establishments. This congressman never worries when the constitutional right
of privacy is stripped from US citizens, but not from the privilege classes.

~~~
themartorana
Fantastic point.

 _WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very
disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015_

If he was just upset at spying on Congress, that'd be one thing. In fact, (and
mentioned in the article) Hoekstra basically scoffed at foreign leaders being
mad about being targeted for surveillance. But we knew the NSA spied on
Congress a while ago. You'll notice he has zero outrage for spying on US
citizens.

But the article outlines several of the most egregious hypocrisies. It's
staggering how boldly our leaders in Congress support, then don't, mass
warrantless surveillance when they find out they're part of the "mass."

------
awakeasleep
A better article could have been written about how an unwritten rule is broken
when the state uses its security apparatus to investigate and discredit its
own elected officials.

Crossing that line destroys the plausible deniability surveillance enjoys. You
can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument when the surveillance
directly subverts the domestic government. And of course thats what we were
all worried about, and it's the most arresting sort of example for everyone.
And how did that 'unwritten rule' become a thing in the first place?

A lot of the wide appeal and scary implications that could be written about
gets lost when gloating about how lemmings 'flip-flopped' after they walked
into that machine that rips off their heads.

~~~
lambda

      You can't make the 'necessary for terrorism' argument 
      when the surveillance directly subverts the domestic 
      government.
    

What prevents a member of the domestic government from being a terrorist, or
having ties to terrorists?

~~~
awakeasleep
Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government.
Their policies are the legitimate policies of the government. The security and
defense wings of the government are strictly subservient to the policies of
elected officials, or it's no longer a democratic government.

~~~
venomsnake
> Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic
> government.

Only if you assume that the voter is rational and informed.

~~~
StavrosK
No, they always represent the will of the people. Even if the will is
irrational.

------
steven2012
Is it really surprising that our politicians believe they are above the laws
that they create? They believe the laws are for us sheep and not for the
wolves. Look at the insider trading laws for Congress as an example.

~~~
adekok
Never attribute to maliciousness what can be better attributed to stupidity.

I've worked with managers who simply couldn't comprehend that a particular
issue was a problem for the engineering department. No amount of examples,
demonstrations, or complaints helped. It wasn't an issue for them, so the
issue _didn 't exist_.

Their story changed later when they ran into the issue. It was now a _problem_
that had to be fixed immediately.

I would explain very slowly that yes, this was a problem. And that they had
been made aware of it months ago. And that they had _opposed_ fixes to the
problem.

The response, of course, was blank incomprehension. They just couldn't
understand that they were incapable of understanding something.

Needless to say, I don't work with those kind of people any more.

~~~
steven2012
I am very, very consciously attributing this to maliciousness. Have you not
been paying attention to US politics for the last ~15 years?

------
typon
As an outsider, watching this happen in the US is like watching a really slow
car accident. This country is being destroyed slowly by its own leaders. As
long as the leaders and others in power are not held accountable by law, there
can be no sustainable social progress.

~~~
KirinDave
Which country in western society is NOT facing a crisis of surveillance this
decade? The entire EU political scene is frothy with special exemptions in the
wake of the Paris attacks.

We're just in an early election cycle so this stuff comes to the fore as
ammunition against the current executive.

~~~
typon
Fine, I see this as more a problem with Western Civilization than just
America. America provides the most spectacular and clear example though.

~~~
KirinDave
I agree. We've inherited a country that has, by and large, completely
abrogated any responsibility to educate our citizens. As such we've got a
growing education gap at least as wide as our income gap.

The result is that a lot of stuff that would have to be more subtle or more
carefully timed just works in the US. But we're seeing similar conservative
playbooks on Hungary and Poland on an incredible timetable. The EU isn't well
equipped to deal with countries that cheerfully dismantle their own
constitution.

------
junto
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the underlying concept of a democracy is to vote
for one person to represent you in congress. So why is it that these people
only stand up for the rest of us when they themselves are directly and
personally affected?

Somewhere along the line the word representative has lost its meaning. They
forget that they represent every single person in their state, not just the
ones that voted for them. They are a single voice echoing the voices of
everyone they represent. They are sadly tied conceptually to their political
peers, rather than those they represent. They should be fighting for us, not
against us.

~~~
Laaw
You're incorrect on what a democracy is; what you've described is a republic.
Democracy isn't a system of government. Anarchy is a system of government that
implements a direct vote on all issues.

~~~
junto
Democracy: noun. a system of government by the whole population or all the
eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

~~~
Laaw
That definition is wrong.

------
legel
Equal justice before the law is essential for any true democracy to function.
And whatever laws we implement, it is their fair and equal implementation that
will be in the best interest of everyone. So if it's really best to have more
or less surveillance, either way we should have members of government under
the same surveillance, just the same as the citizens being governed.

This is probably welcomed news from the average citizen, who already feels
(and fears) the end of privacy and the endless gaze of our panopticon
surveillance systems.

~~~
JackFr
While equal justice before the law is essential, it is well understood that
since at least the ancient Greek city states and the Roman Republic, that
certain public offices are conferred with with special rights, privileges and
responsibilities. That lawmakers, in the process of deliberation and
legislation have a greater expectation of privacy is arguable, but not
unreasonable.

~~~
wpietri
If they are using them as part of their official duties, then yes, special
privileges can be reasonable. But then logically surveillance is one of the
things they can't really object to; if they are only doing the business of
government, then why shouldn't government know what they're up to?

~~~
vidarh
> if they are only doing the business of government, then why shouldn't
> government know what they're up to?

The "business of government" is not a single, unified thing. The "business of
government" for elected representatives involves debating and deciding when
and how to change laws. Part of doing that properly may involve gathering
information from people that if they fear surveillance may be unwilling or
unable to communicate openly or truthfully.

Consider England and Wales (specifically England and Wales, not the UK, as the
laws were changed separately for England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
etc.). Consensual gay sex was only made legal in England and Wales in 1967.

Surveillance would put anyone gay petitioning their MPs (members of
parliament) at risk of legal sanctions up to and including prison and chemical
castration if they were to be caught admitting to having had gay sex. For a
long time afterwards, they were at risk of being imprisoned for statutory rape
if they admitted to having had sex with someone over 16 (the legal age of
consent for straight sex now and then), as the age of consent for homosexual
sex was set higher.

At the same time, MPs had a legitimate interest in hearing exactly from such
constituents, whose lives were substantially affected by unfair laws.

There are many issues here - not subjecting MPs to scrutiny also allows undue
influence from lobbyists, or outright bribes, for examples, so there are
tradeoffs both ways.

But there are many situations where an elected officials duties to to their
constituents may be in jeopardy if their communications are subjected to
surveillance or even if people _believe_ they are under surveillance because
it creates barriers against effectively petitioning them.

To take a more contemporary issue: Imagine if surveillance agencies could
legitimately pick up all discussions about cannabis legalisation between
constituents and lawmakers and use private admissions to lawmakers of use as
evidence against the people involved. As much as it might be inadvisable for
people to admit to illegal acts when talking to lawmakers, it is often
certainly part of "doing the business of government" for lawmakers to listen
to such admissions to get an understanding of their constituents wishes.
Something they should be doing more of, not less of.

~~~
wpietri
Personally, I think the surveillance state is bunk, so I agree with your basic
thrust here. But I still think the notion that elected representatives alone
deserve special surveillance exceptions makes no sense. Representatives
represent. If they can't do their work fairly while being recorded, then
citizens can't either.

Sure, you should be able to talk to your elected reps about how they should
vote on cannabis. But if you can't talk to your friends, family, neighbors,
and colleagues about an issue, then you may not even know why you should talk
to your representatives or what to say.

~~~
legel
There's a great book called The Circle by Dave Eggers that features a scenario
with representatives also under constant surveillance. It wasn't painted to be
too pretty. But I would agree that accountability in the face of "corruption
from special interests" is one of the greatest issues in government.

------
guelo
My conclusion is that Israel is not our "friend", whatever the hell that
means. It is an aggressive powerful state willing to use that power without
regard to any international norms. And it has irreparably corrupted our
political systems to serve its own needs.

If the surveillance state has any purpose, keeping an eye on Israel should be
a top priority.

~~~
relkor
I would encourage you to examine the role of Israel as America's lightening
rod. It is my personal belief that America's leadership is very aware of the
usefulness of Israel and at least sometimes postures accordingly.

~~~
guelo
A lightning rod for what? Terrorism blowback?

~~~
relkor
Yes, Notice how the US strings along the Palestine problem, while not really
moving forward towards a resolution, while at the same time Israel does not
move in with their superior military and kill all belligerents. It is useful
for the anger of the middle east to be concentrated at Israel first, and the
US bribes and strong arms Israel into this role.

------
oskarth
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

------
peteretep
This is what gives me hope. All politicians have skeletons in their cupboards,
none trust their opponents to use their power fairly.

------
pjc50
Well, yes. This is a common problem in politics but particularly bad in the
US: factional morality.

People decide who's a "good guy" and a "bad guy" first, then say you should
investigate the bad guys and leave the good guys alone. Rather than having an
impartial process.

~~~
lisper
It's actually even more insidious than that. The behavior of the "good guy" is
used to _define_ what is acceptable and vice versa. The most glaring example
of this was the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. The Cole was a war ship in
foreign waters. You cannot possibly have a more legitimate military target.
Nonetheless, the attack on the Cole is invariably labelled as a "terrorist
attack" because, well, it was done by Al Qaeda, and whatever Al Qaeda does is,
by definition, terrorism.

By way of contrast, the United States has killed orders of magnitude more
civilians than Al Qaeda ever dreamed of (well over 100,000 in Iraq alone) but
this isn't terrorism because, well, we're the good guys.

~~~
pjc50
It wasn't in _Al Quaeda_ territorial waters, as AQ is not a state. That's why
it's terrorism. There must be better examples;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)
?

~~~
lisper
> It wasn't in Al Quaeda territorial waters

What difference does that make? The Iraqi civilians killed by the U.S. were
not in U.S. territory. In that respect the situations are exactly equivalent.

> AQ is not a state. That's why it's terrorism.

That is exactly the kind of rationalization I'm talking about. Why is AQ not a
state? Well, one might argue that it's because they don't control any
territory. But ISIS controls territory, and yet they are still not considered
a state. Palestine controls territory, and they are not considered a state.
Why? Simply because the people who currently run the club of human
organizations called "states" have decided not to admit them. So it's a
totally circular argument: these groups are "not states" and hence their
violence is "terrorism" rather then "legitimate" military action simply
because some powerful elites have decided not to recognize them as states.

And if you want to argue that these groups are not recognized as states
_because_ of their "terrorist" actions, there are counter-examples to that
too, with Tibet being the poster child.

There are also "state sponsors of terrorism", a label whose attachment has
nothing whatsoever to do with the actual number of civilians killed. Iran, for
example, is a "state sponsor of terrorism" but the U.S. isn't despite the fact
that it has killed vastly fewer civilians than the U.S. Why? Because the U.S.
_decides_ who is and is not a "state sponsor of terrorism."

There are also non-state actors whose actions cause more civilian death and
suffering than Al Qaeda but which are nonetheless not considered terrorist
organization simply because they are the "good guys": the Catholic Church (via
their opposition to family planning and sponsorship of child sexual abuse).
The NRA (via their opposition to reasonable controls on guns). I could go on.

------
ck2
It's not that they discovery the value of privacy.

They really believed nsa (and law enforcement otherwise) will only use their
powers against the "bad guys" and that they would never be subjected to
invasions of privacy.

They don't care if NSA violates everyone else's privacy as long as theirs
isn't violated.

Just like congress gets a special pass through TSA checkpoints, they don't
care as long they aren't hassled and subjugated to violations of rights.

------
vinceguidry
Hypocrisy is an inevitable consequence of politics. A politicians job in a
democratic society is to be an instrument of public will. Well, the public is
made up of countless mindsets and ideals, some of which are going to conflict
with others. Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth because the
only alternative is silence, and silence is career death.

You judge a politician by which bloc they vote most consistently for, not by
what they say.

------
barkingcat
This type of behaviour is common in the United States.

Weren't there some elected officials in the US who were adamantly anti-gay
rights until their own daughters and sons came out as gay? And then they had a
change of heart in order to not destroy their kids with the same legislation
that they voted for themselves for years and years on end.

As flawed humans it's not hard to understand. It never seems to hit home until
you experience it yourself. This is a call for getting a more diverse group in
positions where they can change legislation and actually make things better
for people.

I'd welcome the day when the US elects into governing position a convicted
criminal who's served their time and is interested in changing the legal
system for the better.

------
banku_brougham
I imagine the NSA having dirt on numerous Congressional representatives, and I
imagine the leverage obtained via threat of judicious release of such info in
a politically damaging way. Not in a way that reveals the wiretap of course;
think 'parallel construction.'

Now imagine the congresswoman or man who attempts to reduce the funding or
curtail the powers of the NSA, and how convincing they could be in dissuading
any action that slows the increase of powers, privileges or funding for the
security agencies.

As with entropy I can only see the arrow moving in one direction, heedless of
the concerns of the population or their representatives.

------
cronjobber
Same with journalists. They're at most lukewarm on privacy, maybe a little
less now but certainly before Snowden, until someone wants to touch their
privilege as members of the press to have untapped phone lines etc.

~~~
at-fates-hands
The ironic part of your statement is that the Justice Department scrutiny of
James Rosen came and went and nothing was done.

One of the foundations of this republic is a free press. In his case, you had
a major abuse of power where the government started seizing his emails and
going through them without his knowledge to try and build a case against him
to release one of his sources to a story.

And what happened? Absolutely nothing. No one was charged, there was no
investigation, and two years on, does anybody even remember it or even care
about it?

------
shmerl
Some learn only when they taste their own medicine. The worst part - such
hypocrites aren't fit to be politicians.

------
JackFr
I think Greenwald misses Hoekstra's point entirely.

Consider an analogous situation. Republicans are up in arms because [they
believe] right-wing groups were targeted by the IRS for political purposes. No
one is proposing that the IRS be dismantled, or that its purpose is
illegitimate, but rather its improper use as a political tool of the executive
branch is wrong and possibly criminal.

Similarly, I'm sure Hoekstra has not changed his tune a bit regarding NSA
surveillance in general. The scandal is using the intelligence apparatus as a
political tool.

~~~
danielahn
Who better to surveil than those who may have access to state secrets, and are
actively talking with representatives of other countries? Members of Congress
should be at the top of the list for NSA surveillance.

~~~
XorNot
Perhaps more important to note: are, and its not a secret.

Members of government in general have very little expectation of privacy when
it comes to their communications, to the point that it's a significant issue
with Hillary Clinton's private email server that the mail is unrecoverable in
some cases for auditing purposes.

~~~
JackFr
The rights and obligations of a member of congress and the rights and
obligations of a cabinet secretary appointed at the pleasure of the President
are fundamentally different. They are not just 'members of government'.

------
dawnbreez
I've got some popcorn, if anyone wants some.

In all seriousness, the chances are that this guy took a strong-spying
position because that falls in line with his party and opposes his opponent's
posititon. He most likely began opposing it as a PR move, as well. The US
selects its politicians for PR skills.

------
kordless
It shouldn't be surprising that a congressperson's actions switch polarity at
times. They have to try to toe the line of general concensus until there are
clear "winners" to an argument.

------
mightybyte
Now we just need to get personal dirt on all of congress as well as the
Supreme Court justices leaked...

------
Animats
The intelligence community was doing its job. They were monitoring the actions
of foreign agents trying to secretly influence Government policy. The intel
community is _supposed_ to be doing that. That's basic counterintelligence -
it's how you catch spies.

~~~
avmich
Oh c'mon. Do you understand the issue of privacy at all? The whole problem is
that when you want for any cost to spy, you'll step on your shoes with privacy
infringements. And then the higher order goal - the one you do the spying for
- gets compromised.

------
kmfrk
A nice little coda to CISA being passed in the omnibus bill.

------
Shivetya
we busted Nixon for less, you do not spy on Congress just because you don't
like the head of state they are talking too

~~~
TillE
So this is an absolute scandal which reaches the very top, but the CIA hacking
Senate computers is what, no big deal?

~~~
Amorymeltzer
The better analogy is to J. Edgar Hoover, about whom presidents from Roosevelt
to Nixon did nothing, many of whom disliked, distrusted, and feared the man.

