Slashdot Mirror


US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets

Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!" From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

32 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Since when by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do politicians follow the law?

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
    1. Re:Since when by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since they get to win votes by looking like the good guys for once.

      Any opportunity to give the appearance of caring what the serfs think of them, at least until the next series of America's Top Next Factor Voice Brother starts and this whole mess can be forgotten.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looking like the good guy matters less by the day. "My party, right or wrong" has been the battle cry of American politics for a long while but the lengths to which this is take in the past few administrations has become insane.

    3. Re:Since when by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:Since when by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, there's an important decision to be made.

      The OATH of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that he takes before the entire world during his inauguration clearly states that his duty in that position is "to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States".

      However, George Bush stated that his job was to be "The Decider".

      And Obama repeatedly states at every interview and speech that his "first priority and duty as president" is "to protect the American people".

      So.. no, they don't have "the law" (ie, the Constitution) anywhere in their realm of concern.

      Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

    5. Re:Since when by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

      The purpose of being a Constitutional lawyer is to perform mental gymnastics creating exceptions to clearly-stated language such as "shall not infringe" and "shall make no law".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Since when by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Is it legal" - Trade Federation

      "I will make it legal" - Darth Sidious

      This is the lie of the big government proponents. They love to cloak themselves in "legality", and skirt around the issue of whether or not something is right (correct, moral). Is Snowden a traitor or a hero? Well that depends upon whether you look at what he did as being legal or moral, because those questions result in two different outcomes.

      Next time you here someone say "but they broke the law" ask them if Rosa Parks broke the law.

      Not all laws are just laws.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Several times? A few one-offs hardly represent a mandate from the people when you're dealing with a combined legislative body of 535. The US legislature has the approval rating of a two bit whore at a church gathering and you call a handful of incumbents being ousted by other people normally from the same party a reason to think that Americans are blind to politics beyond the little Rs and Ds that follow a politicians name?

      The fact that you called them "insurgents" speaks volumes to your own political outlook. When the so-called Tea Party looks like a radical departure from the Republican party you know the blinders are on. While the Tea Party did have a good grassroots structure behind it at one point, today it's just another faction of a slightly fractured party. It certainly isn't enough to think that there is serious momentum from the status quo. Even more so apparent when you consider where the "Tea Party" is today compared to these grass roots. It's safe to say the Tea Party would be pretty much forgotten if it weren't for the Democrats trying to whip anyone they didn't like into the mold of a "teabagger."

    8. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tea Partiers are just gullible Republicans who've been tricked by Koch brothers money into thinking they AREN'T just supporting the rich and powerful.

    9. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The same could be said for the Democrats. Yesterday I had seen an interesting placement of links on a new site... one was about how Michelle Obama had hired some high priced fashion advisor while the next link said that 76% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Barak spent more in both elections then the "big money" Republicans.

      When it comes right down to it the big political parties are turning into the next aristocracy and their followers turn a blind eye to their excesses and abuses. We can't afford to offer tours of the White House but we can bring in AAA rated pop stars to do birthday parties? Are you kidding me?

      I don't believe a Republican administration would be that much different.

      It's a party, to be sure... and you're not invited unless you can write some big money checks.

    10. Re:Since when by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not immoral. He swore an oath for his security clearance. An oath like the president or any soldier. Its first clause to to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America. The last is to perform the duties of his position.

      He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.

  2. Good to see senators at least doing their job by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd rather they actually put a stop to it, but I guess we have to be happy that at least some senators are willing to address lies by the government.

    1. Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, generating public outcry is probably the best thing that they can do. There are only a couple good senators and representatives in the US congress and they're not going to overturn these awful laws by themselves. Instead, all they can do is call out the other legislators on their supposed claims of government oversight keeping these programs in check, because obviously that's not happening. The NSA, and probably all other US (and UK, and other) intelligence agencies have already been exposed several times for their lies to the public (and this goes back decades as well).

      So the best thing that these good guy legislators can do is expose the programs and discredit the people that support them. That will get a lot of people who are on the fence to fall on their side.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    2. Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job by TheP4st · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They did little more than slap the NSA in it's fingers saying "naughty boy!" while at the same time condoning the appalling concept of secret courts.

      "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  3. FTFY by redback · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "NSA Lies"

    FTFY

  4. Who is in charge? by Subm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?

    1. Re:Who is in charge? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as Congress controls the budget, Congress is in charge. That won't change any time soon.

      The question is, do enough of their colleagues agree with them to take action? Their view may be poorly justified.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Who is in charge? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. Half right by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The senators said, in part,

    it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans

    My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Half right by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live in Boston. So, yes, we had a "tiger" attack recently that killed 3 people and injured 250+, you insensitive clod. (N.B. I am not saying we need stronger counter-terrorism, I am just saying that terrorists are not purely imaginary.) I am sure the people of Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Yemen believe in terrorists as well.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Half right by oreaq · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm glad we had all that illegal surveillance going to prevent this attack.

    3. Re:Half right by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it is really not possible to fashion a security mesh fine enough to filter out something of this scale (one or two dudes...

      It would be a very positive step if the US government would just admit that and move on.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  6. Re:Reactions to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.

  7. let me fix that for you by csumpi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "So the [put any country's name here] government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"

  8. Secret courts? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings

    What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.

  9. Re:No real congressional over-site by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we had some people in Congress and the Senate who were genuine leaders with a modicum of courage and respect for the oath they swore on The Constitution, they'd go public. Let's see Big Brother arrest some of our elected officials for "treason" because they tell their constituents what the government is doing.

    After all of Obama's speeches telling us about how the programs have congressional oversight, I've been demanding that my elected asshats in DC tell me exactly who knows the details. No luck yet. I've suggested that it must be the intelligence committees, but my Rep. and Senators won't give me any specifics.

  10. Re:Reactions to this by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or the espionage act of 1917. Created with the noble intent of going after people who spoke against joining WWI.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  11. National Security Trumps Constitution by n2hightech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Essentially the constitution means nothing if they say the magic words "National Security". You think you have rights sorry we think you are a threat to "National Security" we can lock you up. No evidence. No judge. No jury. No Press. No rules apply to us we are protecting "National Security". This is the same logic every dictatorship has used throughout history. How big a threat is Al Qaeda and the Talaban really? In all their attacks on the US through out all history they have killed 4400+/- people. And 4488+/- of our troops in their country. So less than 10,000 US deaths due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban over the last 17 years give or take depending on when you say Al Qaeda formed. So the average death tole is 588 US citizens per year due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban actions. How does this compare to other threats to "National Security" From the CDC Report on death statics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf This ranks right up there with accidental deaths from firearms and a bad case of the flu. Don't get me wrong. I believe those responsible for acts of violence should be punished and a military response to 911 was the right thing to do. When you look at the actual impact based on the death toll the security of our country was not and has never been at stake. I do not feel less fearful today or more free today. I am much more fearful of loosing my rights and freedoms to actions of our government than I am to those of Al Qaeda, the Talaban and terrorism in general.

  12. Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them? by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you really mean breaking the constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional rights are binary, you have them or you do not.

    Not that I disagree with the main point of your post, but in practice constitutional rights are rarely as black and white as you seem to think.

    You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.

    Personally I don't think anyone should be aspiring to a justice system that rigidly enforces the letter of law without any regards to the spirit of the law. All that does is encourage people to go searching for loopholes in the language, since you'll never be able to codify the law so perfectly that it won't require any interpretation.

    --
    I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
  13. The media by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So... up until this NSA/Snowden incident, I believed the media was incompetent. Not malicious... just out to make a buck and real news was expensive to do research on. But now it's clear. The coverage on this entire affair by CNN, CBS, NBC, etc... is flat out propaganda. There is no question that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. It is, without a doubt, a violation of our rights. Snowden really is a political activist. The US would be applauding such behavior of a Chinese citizen, and we would provide them asylum in a heartbeat. The presidents that allowed this to continue (Bush and Obama) should be charged in criminal court for this. Obama, at the very least should be impeached. The courts involved, the members of congress that were aware, they should all lose their offices at the very least. The NSA should be shut down permanently. We still have a chance to save the republic... but it's a small one. Everyone in this country needs to vote 3rd party going forward. If you vote R or D in any election in the future, you're a traitor to your country and we should all be ashamed of you.

    1. Re:The media by meta-monkey · · Score: 3

      1) There are a very few not-awful ones (Rand Paul, Ron Wyden) who are on the right side of this issue. Yes, I know they are bound to, under scrutiny, have character flaws and some positions one does not like. This is because they are men, and men are imperfect. If you're holding out for the perfect hero, well, that ain't gonna happen. I only heard about one perfect guy and about 2000 years ago he said "hey everybody, let's be nice to each other" and the rabble nailed him to a tree.

      2) Let's be careful with the "T" word (traitor, that is). We seem to have outlawed reasonableness. Suggesting those who pull an R or D lever are "traitors" is just as wrong as any of the other recent manglings of language. Perhaps instead say they are "those who love their government more than their country."

      In general, this absolutism stuff needs to stop (is that an absolute statement?), because we seem to be constantly demanded to make all or nothing, hyperbolic judgements, that will obviously, inevitable fail to pass scrutiny because the choices given are both wrong. "Snowden: hero or traitor?" Um, how about neither? How about man, who has multiple motivations, some of which are more self-interested than others. That's part of the distraction machine (in addition to the fact that we're talking about the man as much as the message). When those are the only two options, people who only think in binary terms (which seems to be most Americans) just wind up in a confused tailspin. "He's a hero! He stood up to the government!" "But he ran away and heroes don't run!" "Oh no, then he must be a traitor!"

      I have no idea how I'd be judged under such standards. Well, I guess I do. "Goes to work to provide for his wife and family! American everyman hero." "Spends time posting on Slashdot at work. Lazy slacker traitor." Couldn't I just be...a guy...who does some things right and some things wrong?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.