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.
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.]]
I can abnsolutely understand that realisation, and I suppose I am not sure of my thinking regarding the whole paradigm of a powerful select being immune to the tentacles of the surveillance state - I just think it is all very, very bad. I am not clever enough or articulate enough to explain these things properly.
Even better, if you had pulled up an internet article over the NSA spying right before calling your senator, the NSA could even corroborate the two sources together to know that you were talking to your senator about the NSA program (even if all they collect is 'just metadata').
I can't even fathom how anyone can claim this can be allowed in a democracy.
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.
Perhaps one way all of us can make the point here is that when we want to speak to our elected representatives, we insist on doing so face to face, explaining that we don't want a digital 3 way with the NSA.
Ever notice how when you get upgraded to a first class seat on an airplane, it takes about 5 seconds to feel superior to those in the business and coach classes? I think part of that is human nature.
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.
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?
However, it is like the two guards in conundrum: "One guard always tells the truth and the other guard always lies. You don't know which one is honest and which one is the liar..."
So it still must be possible to phrase the question in such a way the truth is revealed, where 'one guard' is the spy agency and the 'other guard' is the politician and the 'national security' response.
Well, if we in the UK are some how responsible for Euro spying on behalf of our US masters, then presumably GCHQ is the centre for all spying on all US citizens who come to Europe. I kinda think its almost a silly question. Of course we are, we are just waiting for the relevant leak to confirm it.
UK wise, I reckon its possibly more worthwhile to ask about GCHQ spying on MP's, UK MEPs, and members of the House of Lords. However, we actually do know that UK security services do spy on elected officials as we know a hell of a lot about what they got up to in Norther Ireland. IIRC, Americans were historically critical of how we treated Irish freedom fighters..... or was it terrorists? But were mainland British folk concerned because they spied on Northern Irish politicians? Not that I know of. Then look at the reaction of British politicians to the Snowden leaks. Pretty muted. Again, I suspect that they are kept in line by implied blackmail.
What might be vaguely useful is if we had a set of standard well formatted questions, that people can copy and use to send to our MPs.
> 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.
The "big catch" is what makes all that cooperation possible. GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod. Sure, nobody ever demanded that the other side do this, but both sides know that if they continue to give each other these "presents" then they can continue to exploit the loophole.
> GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod.
There are about 300 million Americans.
How does GCHQ know which ones to spill the beans on? It can't simply be all the information as NSA would then still need to choose which ones to look at, which would require a separate warrant to "look", even under their surreal logic.
It can't be a specific person directed by NSA, as that makes GCHQ an agent of the U.S. government.
I'm not arguing it's hard to get around in practice, but it is illegal.
As with every other time we mention NSA, if you're going to assume they will break the law as a matter of course then you must leave the Internet immediately or face spying. :P
On the other hand if you want to posit that being easy to break the law is reason enough to burn all the transatlantic fiber so that GCHQ can't cooperate with NSA then simply say so, it's at least theoretically a defensible starting point for a debate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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?
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.
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.
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) 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.
If you're that ignorant about Sanders, I hope that you are not an American. He's about as pro-liberty as it gets, unlike say Rand Paul, who only gives a crap when it suits him politically.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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".
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.
64 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadAll 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.
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.]]
I can't even fathom how anyone can claim this can be allowed in a democracy.
At none.
Amendment IV 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.
Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.
'You can turn it off!' he said.
'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'
So, yes then.
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.
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?
Stuff about GCHQ is normally handled by the http://isc.independent.gov.uk/
However, it is like the two guards in conundrum: "One guard always tells the truth and the other guard always lies. You don't know which one is honest and which one is the liar..."
So it still must be possible to phrase the question in such a way the truth is revealed, where 'one guard' is the spy agency and the 'other guard' is the politician and the 'national security' response.
UK wise, I reckon its possibly more worthwhile to ask about GCHQ spying on MP's, UK MEPs, and members of the House of Lords. However, we actually do know that UK security services do spy on elected officials as we know a hell of a lot about what they got up to in Norther Ireland. IIRC, Americans were historically critical of how we treated Irish freedom fighters..... or was it terrorists? But were mainland British folk concerned because they spied on Northern Irish politicians? Not that I know of. Then look at the reaction of British politicians to the Snowden leaks. Pretty muted. Again, I suspect that they are kept in line by implied blackmail.
What might be vaguely useful is if we had a set of standard well formatted questions, that people can copy and use to send to our MPs.
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.
There are about 300 million Americans.
How does GCHQ know which ones to spill the beans on? It can't simply be all the information as NSA would then still need to choose which ones to look at, which would require a separate warrant to "look", even under their surreal logic.
It can't be a specific person directed by NSA, as that makes GCHQ an agent of the U.S. government.
As with every other time we mention NSA, if you're going to assume they will break the law as a matter of course then you must leave the Internet immediately or face spying. :P
On the other hand if you want to posit that being easy to break the law is reason enough to burn all the transatlantic fiber so that GCHQ can't cooperate with NSA then simply say so, it's at least theoretically a defensible starting point for a debate.
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.
Who the fuck, would believe that?
Nice turn of phrase - some googling suggests it's original?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-br...
Shocking, shocking I say /s.
"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
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180....
The fact that the data is being stored at all is cause for concern.
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.
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)?
In other words: almost none to zero.