
Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA - Libertatea
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access
======
danenania
Honestly, the idea that the NSA is going to go after senators and congressmen
for doing their jobs with broad popular support is just a pure and obvious
bluff. This would just increase the intensity of the controversy and
spotlight, which is clearly the last thing the NSA and the Obama
administration want right now.

These folks need to suck it up and go out on just a bit of a limb for the sake
of our democracy. That is the oath they took and they bear much of the
responsibility for allowing things to reach this point in the first place. If
a 29 year old can risk his life and give up any chance of seeing home again to
do the right thing, these supposed representatives of our interests can take a
much, much smaller risk and do the same.

~~~
ihsw
And what are we to do when their bluffs are revealed to be truthful, and the
NSA's sway over all levels of government to be absolute? What if we were to
learn that the Constitution is simply a feeble veneer meant to conceal the
fact that there is certain legislation we're powerless to exert pressure over?

What happens when the sea of democracy recedes and all that's left are naked,
stinking husks that were once called "congressional oversight" and "judicial
oversight"?

My comment may the _height_ of hyperbole and scaremongering, but it's
difficult to ignore the opportunity to express myself in such a colorful
manner.

~~~
ohyes
Vote the bums out and defund the NSA. It's clear no one on the intelligence
committee has been doing their job, so let's start there.

[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html)

[http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-
members](http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members)

~~~
ganeumann
I'm curious how Californians feel about Dianne Feinstein (Chair of the
intelligence committee.) I'm not in CA; do people there plan to vote her back
in when she's up for reelection or has the NSA scandal hurt her?

~~~
a3n
People in California, as everywhere, don't feel anything in particular about
their representative.

The power of incumbency does not come from citizens believing their rep does a
great job, it comes from money putting that rep in the public eye. People in
general will vote for who is put in front of their face the most. "I've heard
of this guy, never heard of that other guy so much, so this guy it is. Now
home to the TV."

~~~
jjjeffrey
Idea: Perhaps election voting should be separated into different dates for
different groups. I've certainly been guilty of knowing more about the
president I was voting for than for congress persons (and even worse, state
and local elections and bills). I've voted for people based on nothing more
than the information on the ballot sheet. (Thankfully, I know better than to
do that now.)

If people couldn't vote for lower offices simply because they showed up for
presidential votes, but rather had to show up to vote on another date for
other elections, then only people who actually cared about lower offices would
vote for those. I think that might make it a lot harder to keep incumbents in
power.

~~~
hga
Actually I take that sort of thing as a sign of machine politics. When
elections don't coincide with the ones that bring a lot of people into the
booths, then the machine that's most effective at getting voters to the booths
wins, unless the election becomes non-normal (e.g. a lot of people have a
reason to get rid of someone, see below for two local examples).

Local elections, whenever they're held, _are_ a real problem; unless I have
real knowledge about a candidate I don't vote. My parents and I all pool our
information together (e.g. my father knows which county commissioner is an
idiot, and I, oh, research judges) and even then there are a lot of offices we
don't vote on. And some run unopposed, e.g. our county clerk is very
competent.

But that doesn't mean this is all a generally useless exercise, if an abusive
public administrator, or a sheriff who doesn't play well with others is up for
reelection, at least where I live they will be sent back home to spend more
time with their families, or eventually to Federal prison in the case of the
administrator.

~~~
ganeumann
This, I believe, is actually always the case. While swing voters decide a few
elections, most elections are decided by how motivated each party's voters are
to actually get to the polls.

A great quantitative example of this is in the (somewhat dry) "Rise and Fall
of the American Whig Party" by Michael Holt. While it talks about a very
different time, the demonstration that the party that got the most of its
voters to vote always won was pretty convincing.

------
mikegioia
This seems to get more frustrating by the day. Greenwald depicts a system
where the NSA/FISA are in cahoots, seemingly deciding for themselves what they
should or shouldn't be doing.

Their stated regulatory agencies, the House/Senate, aren't even allowed to
read info about what is they're doing -- yet the House/Senate have to vote on
NSA authorizations? This is what Congress is receiving:

    
    
        "Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends
        Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business
        Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine
        Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is
        classified."
    

How does this go on for so long!?

    
    
        The Congressman received no response to any of his
        requests. With a House vote looming on whether to 
        defund the NSA's bulk collection program - it was
        scheduled for July 25 - he felt he needed the
        information more urgently than ever. He recounted his
        thinking to me: "How can I responsibly vote on a
        program I know very little about?"
    

Yet they vote to fund it anyway, knowing that they don't know anything about
the programs they're funding.

~~~
alan_cx
I'll say it again: we don't know if the security services blackmail
politicians, and other influential or powerful people.

When I say black mail, simply knowing that one is routinely snooped on makes
people more compliant. The implication can be enough. Had a few joints at
college? Want to be a politician? Well, behave and be nice to security issues
then, just in case... Very much the Soviet trick. Have every one assume they
are spied on.

Not a US problem as such, one for the any relationship between security and
politicians (and other powerful people), regardless of country or political
system. And all because security insists on secrecy, which I am not convinced
is required in a vast majority of cases.

To my mind, the lack of any real reaction to the NSA revelations, both in the
US and here in the UK, increase my suspicion that this implied blackmail is
rife, perhaps standard practice.

~~~
ihsw
> we don't know if the security services blackmail politicians, and other
> influential or powerful people.

It doesn't need to be so one-sided, some Senate and House members may in fact
be benefiting greatly from the NSA's spying (eg: manipulating the stock market
by using their exclusive access to private information), and in exchange the
NSA continues their work with impunity and without oversight. It's a symbiotic
relationship where they're benefiting from each-other.

~~~
Maxious
> A 2004 study found that stock sales and purchases by Senators outperformed
> the market by 12.3% per year.
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Insider_trading_by_members_of_Congress)

~~~
Oculus
You forgot to add the _[citation needed]_ at the end of that sentence.

------
techsupporter
"In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several
slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's
efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member,
Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that
those slides were still classified, despite having been published and
discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or
discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face
sanctions if he continued."

Well, since we're having a merry old time stomping all over the Constitution,
I suppose asking what ramifications could possibly befall this Representative,
considering the "Speech and Debate" immunity provided under Article 1, Section
6 of our allegedly-cherished Constitution, is a moot point. This is why it's
probably best that I'm not in Congress, since I'd like to think that my
response would have been "so?", followed by my continuing to press the issue.
Sens. Wyden and Udall didn't take such a course, so I assume the consequences
would have been dramatic.

~~~
Buttons840
Where is the StackOverflow for upcoming bills? There should be a simple site
(which I may have to make myself) where people can vote on bills they think
are important and draw attention to them.

For the uninvolved citizen, they could visit the site and see that [something
like] SOAP 2.0 is voted most important to watch. They could then cast their
own disproving vote for the bill, which the site would track so that come
election time a notice such as "Senator John votes in accordance with your
votes 20% of the time."

The user could easily express their opinions, the site would remember their
opinions, and would tell the user when their representatives did not represent
them.

Personally, I don't know what bills are important, and even if I did I
wouldn't remember how my Senator voted 5 years from now when he's up for
reelection.

~~~
jdp23
That would be Popvox: [https://www.popvox.com/](https://www.popvox.com/)

~~~
Buttons840
Thanks for bringing that site to my attention.

Although, I was picturing something more "dumbed down" like StackOverflow. I
didn't see any important issues mentioned on the front page. It took me a few
tries before I could find a link to important issues. I ended up clicking the
"Get Started" button which I expected to take me to a registration page asking
for my personal information. The "Get Started" link did take me to important
issues though. Upon closer inspection, I do like the site.

~~~
jdp23
Yeah, it isn't so easy to get to the important issues ... seems like their
expectations is that users already know what bill they want to comment on when
they get there. So, okay, not Stack Overflow yet. But more positively they've
done a good job looking at it from the congressional staffers' perspective as
well.

------
throwaway_yy2Di
This article is amazing. If you didn't read: two things it claims about the
House intelligence oversight committee are:

* That it censored a congressman from discussing the contents of the Snowden leaks with other representatives (search for "sanctions")

* That this chairman allegedly made up a secret committee vote that didn't happen, and that in practice he can get away with this (search for "voice vote")

------
mtgx
I hope Greenwald gets his chance to the hearing. So convenient for Obama to
cancel his hearing [1], so they won't be able to have one until Congress gets
back to work, so they have plenty of time to strategize against him, and get
the politicians they need on their side.

[http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-
canceled...](http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/31/greenwald-hearing-canceled-due-
to-house-dems-meeting-with-obama/)

------
coldcode
If a congress person has balls they will risk everything to let the people
know what is being done in secret to them. But it's tough to have balls when
they would be happy if you deposited them in Guantanamo once you leave office.
But the people who started this country didn't care what happened to them
either when they took on the most powerful country on the planet. That's the
kind of leader it would be nice to find.

------
northwest
Democracy in full effect.

> "If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to
> do my job", Rep. Griffith told me.

Very similar to the judges who do not know enough about technology and make
decisions about things they don't understand.

------
w_t_payne
Given that the NSA and it's sister organisations are now being squeezed,
politically, what do you think their response will be?

Of course, the proper, professional and legitimate response is to sit back and
to let the democratic process run it's course. We all hope and trust that this
is what will happen.

However, given the resources at their disposal, it is not too difficult to
speculate about what they might do (or be tempted to do) to secure their
budget and to maintain their surveillance capabilities.

Similarly, after the current round of outrage and media attention has died
down, what do you think that they will do to prevent something like this from
happening again?

Beyond measures to prevent further leaks (that we already know they are
considering) ... how might the technology that underpins tools such as Prism
and XKeyScore be used to manipulate public opinion, to neutralise or mitigate
the impact of those espousing hostile opinions, and to promote and spread a
friendly point of view?

I am specifically thinking of man-in-the-middle attacks to manipulate messages
and web-pages in-flight, to implement a sort of third-party hell-ban attack on
activists and commentators. Is this possible without the collusion of the
publisher?

------
julianozen
The other problem with congressional oversite is what happened during the SOPA
hearings.

Congress is vaguely qualified to assess data collection techniques.

------
uptown
Even if they were properly informed, doesn't Congress currently have something
like a mid-teens approval rating? While they obviously should be overseeing
everything that's going on, a rating like that doesn't exactly exude
confidence from the American public that they'd even know what to do given the
opportunity to do so.

------
stretchwithme
Which means are elected officials are not in charge. I wonder who is.

------
codex
It looks like these requests are being denied by the intelligence committee;
do the asking members of Congress have the requisite security clearances? If
so, I wonder if by law this information is restricted to members of the
committee.

------
ferdo
“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.”

― Lysander Spooner

------
Shivetya
two words: stop funding

Simple as that. If Congress is truly serious about this, they should strip the
NSA of its funding.

------
bazillion
Ok, you guys are kind of blowing this way out of proportion. This is
absolutely standard -- whenever classified information is disclosed
unintentionally, you aren't allowed to discuss it in a non-secure
compartmented facility. There are tons of reasons, starting with:

-Limiting exposure of the information already divulged

-Preventing further (especially unintentional) classified information spills

-Limiting adversaries collecting on what information and to what degree people are knowledgeable about

The fact is, if you're a legislator who is given compartmented access, you
should know better than to propagate information that has been unintentionally
released. For one, it promotes discussion of classified information in
unclassified spaces. Secondly, it gives apparent validation to information
that might not necessarily be true.

It's getting really tiresome reading these flavor-of-the-day NSA bashing
articles, having worked at NSA and having eaten of the tree of knowledge. The
intelligence community does not dictate foreign policy or collection policies.
They serve at the direction of the federal government under the DNI
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence)),
who is appointed by the president. They carry out the tasks that are given to
them under the direction of the administration. There exists a feedback system
which allows agencies to understand what information was vital in helping make
decisions and what information wasn't important.

Here comes the tricky part: politicians clamor for more information in order
to make better informed decisions -- just look at the situation with the
possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. When intelligence agencies don't
come up with anything actionable, politicians ask "Why not?", to which the
agencies respond, "We don't have enough access to real time information.", or
"You stated that X mission wasn't important so we stopped supporting it.".
Then the politicians rewrite legislation in order to prevent further
roadblocks to obtaining information in a timely manner with which they can
make decisions.

All of that happens, and you want to blame an intelligence agency for doing
its job at various levels of efficiency? In that entire process, the agency
only gives feedback as to what its capabilities are and what it needs in order
to increase its capabilities. The administration and legislators determine the
scope of the work which the agencies function in.

There is no secret conspiracy, people. It's a very simple system: you vote in
people and then tell them that you want the prevention of terrorist attacks
prioritized above funding NASA. The public is then made aware to what degree
the politicians were willing to go to in order to expand intelligence powers,
so outrage ensued. Now, there is legislation being pushed forward (not
successfully yet) in order to limit the powers. Is this not a representative
democracy working to correct its mistakes and push towards a more perfect
union?

~~~
ryanmolden
I'm sympathetic to this as I may know people who work at various DOD
subsidiaries, and they are good people. That said, to deny there are no
sociopathic power seekers in these organizations is just naive. Giving an
absolute power that can so easily be abused to any organization is a terrible
idea. Even if today they are lead by a metaphorical holy, righteous person,
tommorow they may not be, and when such a change occurs it won't be announced
like some cartoon villain holding a press conference declaring their evil
plans for all to see. I agree that congress, at least certain members of it,
those privy to this information, have no legitimate claim to ignorance and
outrage (okay, maybe the former), but I see the bigger problem being a program
like what is alleged is even allowed to be set up. They claim there is strict
oversight/auditing of data, and while I have no doubts this is technically
true, I highly doubt it is the story "on the ground", just based on my
knowledge of human nature and large scale organizations.

------
Khaine
America truly is the land of the free

