Slashdot Mirror


Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers

An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly accused the CIA of inappropriately searching computers used by her committee, violating presidential directives, federal laws and the Fourth Amendment. The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location for use by the members of the intelligence committee. When the committee staff received internal documents the CIA had not officially provided, the agency examined the computers used by the committee and removed the unauthorized documents. The action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution." There were rumors of such a few weeks ago, and now it's official. Read the transcript of her speech.

67 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

    I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

    1. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dianne, petard. Petard, Dianne.

    2. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...because she's callous and domineering? ...because people in this country like that kind of leadership so long as it is hidden behind a fake smile, decorum, and a few ginned up talking points to drool over?

    3. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

      Because we are the little people and she is the ruling class. We only matter to gain her more power and make her husband more money.

    4. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.

      Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only that its the same Senator who argued how necessary to national security the NSA surveillance programs are after the Snowden leaks.

      Hypocrisy at its finest; curb stop my constituents 4th amendment rights and thats all fine, but violate my rights and look out!

      I'd like to think she might learn something from this, but I doubt she will.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by CauseBy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be clear, they are absolutely hacking her personal email, no doubt about it.

      I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who gets illegally wiretapped -- except for people like Feinstein who openly call for practically everyone (except her) to be illegally wiretapped. She deserves it; the rest of us don't.

    7. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

      I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

      It's worse than that - this is a fundamental breakdown of Congressional power that's leading to a dictatorial Presidency.

      It's just fine by her when the executive branch unilaterally changes things like statutory Affordable Care Act deadlines, because it suits her political purposes.

      It's fine by her to give the DNI a pass when he perjures himself in congressional testimony, because it suits her political purposes.

      It's fine by her when the President makes "recess" appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was still legally in session, because it suits her political purposes.

      So now, because dolts like Feinstein were all to eager to give the executive branch of the US government a pass when it suited them, we now have an out-of-control Presidency where the President is even PROUD to be out of control - he "has a pen and a phone".

      What the hell are you Obama apologists going to do if a Republican becomes President and uses his "pen and ... phone" to gut Obamacare? Why can't he, when Obama himself can change the law unilaterally?

    8. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting
      To be fair, she accuses the intelligence community of doing far more than simply spying on her.

      said the CIA had searched through computers belonging to staff members investigating the agency’s role in torturing detainees, and had then leveled false charges against her staff in an attempt to intimidate them. “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause,” she said. “It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.”

      From the intercept.

      The intelligence community blackmailing the people who are supposed to have oversight of the intelligence community is probably at least a little more dangerous than the intelligence community spying on it's citizens. If for no other reason that the former prevents the latter from being solved. Pruning the CIA and NSA back to appropriate levels will require congressional action, and that's likely exactly what the CIA and/or NSA is trying to stop with these actions.

    9. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, she accuses the intelligence community of doing far more than simply spying on her.

      said the CIA had searched through computers belonging to staff members investigating the agency’s role in torturing detainees, and had then leveled false charges against her staff in an attempt to intimidate them.

      “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause,” she said. “It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.”

      From the intercept.

      The intelligence community blackmailing the people who are supposed to have oversight of the intelligence community is probably at least a little more dangerous than the intelligence community spying on it's citizens. If for no other reason that the former prevents the latter from being solved. Pruning the CIA and NSA back to appropriate levels will require congressional action, and that's likely exactly what the CIA and/or NSA is trying to stop with these actions.

      Good point. However this illustrates the dangers of allowing the intelligence community spying to spy on citizens as freely as they can now. Who's to say the intelligence community won't start blackmailing or framing citizens that don't meet their political views.

      Imagine if J Ed Hoover had the surveillance abilities and rules we have today? Would he been able to destroy Martin Luther King's civil rights movement if he had the ability identify supporters of the movement and find dirt to blackmail them as fast as he would have today?

    10. Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I only disagree when you get to "now she does". I don't believe that to be true. I think she only objects to their spying upon her and her staff. I would be quite happy were she to prove me wrong.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

    I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

    1. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The hypocritical Senator's own word, for our enjoyment. Pass the popcorn.

      The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America
      By Dianne Feinstein
      Oct. 13, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

      Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency's call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer: The program—which collects phone numbers and the duration and times of calls, but not the content of any conversations, names or locations—is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.

      Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program
      By Dianne Feinstein
      Oct. 20, 2013 6:22 p.m. EDT

      The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.

      The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

    2. Re:Hypocrisy by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2

      And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

      I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

      This is the same woman who is one of the strongest supporters of gun control while she herself has one of the few concealed carry licenses in California. I don't think she even considers hypocrisy something to be ashamed of.

  3. It's a she, not a he by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    That asshole's name is Dianne Feinstein, a staunchly pro-NSA, pro-BIG BROTHER senator.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:It's a she, not a he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say it's time to double-down. If she's so against it, she clearly has something to hide.

    2. Re:It's a she, not a he by memojuez · · Score: 5, Informative

      You forget, Congress is full of elitists who didn't follow many of the Employment Laws and regulations (Equal Opportunity Employment, Affirmative Action, OSHA, etc) until it required itself in 1994. So, it only stands to reason that one of their ilk, regardless of Party affiliation, would evoke her 4th Amendment rights while gleefully trampling on ours.

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    3. Re:It's a she, not a he by NotDrWho · · Score: 3

      If she's attacking the CIA, she's probably a terrorist. Better cuff her and get her on a plane to Gitmo. Better safe than sorry when it comes to national security.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:It's a she, not a he by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No shit! Congress happily gave Federal agencies powers to spy on virtually every human being on the planet, so they can fucking well live on the same sphere we do.

      Don't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, Feinstein? Well, a big "fuck you" from the rest of the world.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:It's a she, not a he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, she really is fucking nuts and a huge hypocrite. As if the gun control and now governmental spying hypocrisy weren't enough to clue you into that, consider her stance on drones. She was all for more drones... until Code Pink was flying (read: constantly crashing) a cheap $25 remote control helicopter near her house in protest. So, Feinstein made up this whole dramatic story about how there was these huge drones spying on her and peeking in her windows and it scared her so much that she totally went the other way and started demanding new laws to make drones illegal.

      She's crazy. She's a liar. She's a hypocrite. How about you put your own bias behind you and actually examine what's being said?

    6. Re:It's a she, not a he by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.

    7. Re:It's a she, not a he by brainboyz · · Score: 2

      I think he got it right. She wants freedom from CIA snooping. I think that's good for all of us.

    8. Re:It's a she, not a he by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't even bother hiding it anymore. She routes millions to her husband and nobody cares.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. While this is probably true... by edibobb · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Senator Feinstein has significantly less technological prowess than my cat, and has exhibited this on numerous occasions.

    1. Re:While this is probably true... by Akratist · · Score: 2

      Given that statement, I'm tempted to ask if your cat is capable of flushing the toilet and what that fact would mean for the average IQ in the Senate.

  5. Schadenfreude by fuzznutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excuse me for a moment while I savor this moment.

    1. Re:Schadenfreude by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Only for a moment: this needs to be pressed. Otherwise, congress will pass laws restricting the NSA from spying on congress, and maybe large corporations who donate well. Then everyone will forget about the NSA and we'll be left permanently under big brother's gaze. At least until we say something the government doesn't like, at which point they'll release or make up embarassing or illegal stuff about us, then send us to for-profit prisons to work as slaves.

      Maybe a bit too cynical there, but hey, can't be too careful.

  6. I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have sympathy for her

    I have absolutely no sympathy for that piece of shit.

    She's a typical example of what is wrong with the government of the United States of America.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

      If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance, even if it means applauding someone who is typically not on our side, and whom we may find personally reprehensible.

      Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?

    2. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think it's at all out of order to take some pleasure in one of the most-pro NSA people in Congress being hoisted by her own petard. Is it wrong to take pleasure from the chickens coming home to roost for Feinstein... well maybe a little, but I just can't help myself.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, by all means take pleasure in it. But if you want to see things change keep your pleasure to yourself and back her protest. "Even my detractors are rallying behind me" is a powerful battle cry.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back her protest?

      No.

      Back her opponent in the next primary. She is worse then useless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Absolutely no reason you can't do both.
      Is she worthy of backing?
      Is her cause worth backing?

      If your answers are "No" and "Yes", and you make that clear, then your support can be an even more powerful boon to the cause than the support of those who would happily follow her off a cliff. Not to mention informing her potential opponents in the next election as to which issues are actually important to you.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Her cause, so far as I can tell, is to stop Federal spooks from spying on her. It does not appear to be stopping Federal spooks from spying on anybody beyond the rarefied circles of Congress.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being

      She only does the job when it effects her personally and her power. Does the office monkey who only does any work while the boss is watching deserve a positive review? I believe the CIAs actions were wrong. My only disagreement is with assigning credit to Feinstein for not sleeping while the boss is looking her way.

      I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?

      Each time without exception someone has used the words "I take it" to describe a position I have never asserted they get it wrong.

  7. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Feinstein is Chair on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence! That she doesn't know what the CIA, NSA, or anyone else is doing with regard to surveillance, or is kept out of the loop on purpose, or hasn't pulled any muscle to reign it in, speaks volumes to what exactly her position in the committee does.

    Quick jab... but sure as hell, when it comes to copyright and the media cartels, her power seems endless.

    1. Re:Wow! by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows there's no intelligence in the senate.

  8. CIA computers by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I read it, the CIA searched their own computers that were made available to the Senate Committee, looking for documents that were not supposed to be made available or publicly released. For whatever reason (probably a CIA screw-up) someone on the committee found those documents and blabbed about them.

    Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers. It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint, but given the amount of hysteria around leaks these days it doesn't surprise me that the CIA thought they had a bigger problem than just one of their own inadvertently releasing documents that should not have been.

    1. Re:CIA computers by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      No we are not being unfair to Feinstein. Secrect committees and secret courts monitoring secret agencies about what secret data they are collecting in their secret facilities; isn't a workable model on the scale we are trying to do it.

      Sure state craft requires some secrets and shadows, but democracy in the form a functioning republic needs a lot a sunshine. We have been trying to get people like her to understand we have gone way way way to far with this crap. We have created a monster "We the people" can't control, they 1% who can get elected Senator can't control either. What we have is something that is almost completely beyond control at this point. That monster is crushing our most basic principles under boots year by year, month by month, day by day, moment to moment; destroying the very society it was breed to protect.

      Its high time to we take the NSA out behind the tool shed and put it down. The CIA and FBI need a sound kicking; right sizing and reminding of their core missions.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  9. I won't hold my breath by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I say it's time to double-down

    You gotta understand that assholes like Dianne Feinstein doesn't think like us.

    She thinks she's in the 0.1% elite, and for that, she ought to have the immunity from the same BIG BROTHER that she has thrown her support for.

    As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I won't hold my breath by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

      I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

    2. Re:I won't hold my breath by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

      I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

      Personally I blame California.

    3. Re:I won't hold my breath by mspohr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, she is in the 0.1% elite and got her money the true American way by inheritance, marriage, and political corruption:
      "On January 20, 1980, in San Francisco, California, finance capitalist Richard C. Blum (born in 1936) and the ambitious Democratic Party politician Dianne Feinstein (born 1933) were married in a wedding ceremony at San Francisco City Hall. This marriage created a family economic and political alliance that in a little over a decade would allow them to become the top power couple in the state of California with a place on the national and world stages. They remain at the pinnacle of power today, he as a billionaire financier, speculator, real estate executive and deal maker; she as the senior Senator (California’s highest federal official), from the largest and most powerful state in the United States. They exemplify power as it is now wielded in the higher circles of the class system of the U.S. today, and illustrate well the dismal results of this system. This system is best characterized as a plutocratic kleptocracy, completely lacking in authentic democracy, operated by and for corporate racketeers, in short, a dictatorship of big capital, the top 1% of wealth holders, which makes up a ruling class. "
      More background here:
      http://www.foundsf.org/index.p... ... and here:
      http://www.revolutimes.com/201...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:I won't hold my breath by PRMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because Northern California voters are beyond stupid. They'll unthinkingly vote for anyone who is "Democrat" even if he bankrupted the state twice already or if she has already been a downright awful senator for 3 or 4 terms already.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:I won't hold my breath by RR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

      I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

      I didn't vote for her. I voted for somebody else. Yet Feinstein was just, in 2012, reelected with the most votes any senator has ever received, ever.

      I think humans are defective. Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world. Democracy is a terrible idea for a country as large as the United States. It's better than any other idea we've tried so far, but there are just too many voices demanding too much attention for it to work well.

      So, humans simplify. Most people stick to the 2 parties that they hear about the most. The media talk about the 2 parties that pay them the most. The major party candidates listen to the donors who donate the most. Larry Lessig hopes that campaign finance reform will fix democracy, but humans still need simplified choices.

      I think humans can't reasonably manage something as large as the United States. The federal government needs to be scaled way down, or the United States split up, so more local decisions can be made about local issues. But, again, humans are defective, and for example people in New York are personally offended at the local education decisions made in Texas, so the federal government just keeps growing.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    6. Re:I won't hold my breath by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Northern California voters are beyond stupid. They'll unthinkingly vote for anyone who is "Democrat" even if he bankrupted the state twice already or if she has already been a downright awful senator for 3 or 4 terms already.

      It's not that they'll vote for anybody that is a Democrat, but rather against anybody who is a Republican. No matter how bad their guy is, they're still better than the other guy's guy. I see the same thing for people voting for Republicans in OK. So long as they're not a democrat, they think they'll come out ahead.

    7. Re:I won't hold my breath by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world.

      The Representative Democracy our founding fathers intended did not have this issue. The issue began when the Federal government grew beyond its scope. Federal spending is now about equal to the total combined spending of State and Local governments (a little larger now, actually.) This is very far removed from the intentions of our founding fathers. Good intentions was the excuse for the massive amount of violence used to overthrow the States as primary governing bodies.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  10. Uh OH by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    And here we are told that the CIA only spies on other nations and not within the US. I will say that her position is such that an enemy who turned her would have a serious advantage and therefore she does need deep investigation as a matter of national security as do all others involved in the intelligence community. The catch is that the CIA is not the org that is supposed to do this sort of thing. Just maybe this world is so dangerous that all of this spying needs to be going on. Maybe I am lucky in not knowing the evil going on around me.

  11. Liz Cheney Syndrome by akirapill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your rights are only important when they're also my rights.

  12. Re:This is communist accusations by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    I hope I never live in a world where you can't even trust the CIA to be honest with you.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  13. Sure, I'm the idiot by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And so the NRA's smear campaign continues to influence idiots like you

    I am a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

    I am an American who treasure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and am willing to do anything and everything to protect my country from traitors such as that asshole Feinstein.

    If doing so makes me an "idiot", so be it, and I hope that America has more "idiots" like me than "geniuses" such as your kind.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Sure, I'm the idiot by nuonguy · · Score: 2

      For the record, I'm not american, so I can't vote but I imagine I might support just about any other candidate except her based solely on her position on NSA spying up to now.

      You, however, haven't said anything except that you hate her. Your vitriol is rated at 5,Insightful. I see no justification for that except from people living inside the same media bubble as you. Maybe you could post something insightful or informative such as positions she's taken or legislation she's voted on.

      How can I tell the difference between you and some right wing crazy that thinks that hurricanes are caused by gay marriage?

      Forget it, just keep ranting about how stupid and how much of an asshole she is, that's good for karma.

  14. What could possibly go wrong? by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    Let's see ... you're investigating potential war crimes perpetrated by the CIA, so you store all of the records of the investigation on an air-gapped computer system located at a CIA facility in Virginia. What could possibly go wrong?

  15. Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see now.

    Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

    And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

    Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the populace who are supposed to oversee and authorize the government. The populace can hardly effectively oversee the government when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Feinstein is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Feinstein is a liar and has mislead the American people on countless occasions about NSA spying and has been in lock step with the emerging police state. this is a distraction from the real constitutional violations that she has been complicit in covering up.

    She deserves every insult, every invective and our complete contempt. And even more so for this latest charade and false indignation. If anything this just shows that not even the CIA respects her.

  18. Diebold... by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Informative

    Any other questions?

  19. Animal Farm by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

    Because she - being a very wealthy Senator - is more equaler than the rest of us.

  20. My cat as well... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    Though one must convert all output to PETSCII

  21. Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I read you're misreading it. The CIA agreed to put a bunch of its own stuff on its own computers for the Senate to look at, under the written agreement that they would let the Senate do its investigation without interference. Apparently, at one point they (the CIA and apparently 3rd party public contractors) started removing documents from the secure computers in violation of that agreement. That was what you were referring to, and that alone would be the CIA searching and hiding stuff from the Senate in violation of a written agreement (and several laws, mentioned at the end of the speech).

    However, the issue went further after that first incident was "resolved". At one point, the CIA included a report it had made about the same topics that the Senate was investigating on those computers. Those papers were printed, removed from the CIA room and taken in a secure fashion to the committee offices, per exactly what they were allowed to do. The CIA then, allegedly, and if I read it right (I only read it once), decided to break into the committee computers and removed the documents. Again, there are a list of laws and constitutional provisions that this would have potentially violated mentioend at the end of the speech.

    Again, I read this quickly and only once, so if I got a detail wrong someone else might correct me. Also, I should mention that given James Clapper's blatant lying to congress re: NSA spying, it doesn't seem like any consequences come with giving the legislature a big fuck off.

  22. Re:NRA and ACLU?? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ACLU isn't anti second amendment. They just don't actively support that particular civil liberty.

    Both the NRA and the ACLU are pro-civil liberty organizations. Between them, they support (as much as realistically possible) the whole constitution. The NRA is the United States oldest civil liberty organization.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. This needed to be public by delcielo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Regardless of the hypocrisy of Feinstein, this turn of events needed to be made public.

    The CIA did something wrong. The Senate opened an investigation. The CIA accidentally sent them incriminating information, then deleted some after it had already been reviewed. The CIA agreed not to delete any more, then did it again. The Senate put some of this incriminating information into their official report and moved evidence to a secure location. The CIA didn't much care for that and started an investigation into how they got it, trumped up accusations of criminal conduct and have refused to accept the legitimate oversight role of the Senate. Hate Feinstein all you want, but don't dismiss this illegitimate action by the CIA because she's no angel herself.

    --
    Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
  24. TL;DR by Squiggle · · Score: 2

    For those that didn't read the article, there are a few important points to clarify:

    Feinstein's staff is being (falsely) accused of hacking/spying on CIA since they got their hands on some documents the CIA did not want them to have: namely the CIA's own internal investigation of the documents being released to the senate investigation. It seems like the "search tool" provided to the senate staff picked up more than the CIA thought it would. The staffers smartly made their own copy of these docs (as previous evidence had disappeared) and then the CIA did a search of the investigations computers without seemingly any authority to do so.

    The final twist is that the CIA internal investigation supposedly agrees with the senate investigation, while publically the CIA disagrees. Feinstein basically has them over a barrel, plus they pushed their luck to try and escape the trap and got themselves in deeper with the potentially highly illegal search.

    It also seems likely that the CIA lawyer who allowed all the CIA torture is heavily involved now in trying to save his own ass.

    --
    Complexity Happens
  25. This isn't spying, it's evidence tampering.... by pcwhalen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the outset, let's look at the moral of the story: You can't trust spies or spy agencies. Especially not the way the Senator has consistently told us we should trust the NSA.

    The "CIA computers" were part of a document production system provided by the CIA pursuant to a Senate Committee subpoena. It contained CIA documents responsive to the Senate subpoena in electronic form instead of paper copies. The document depository was run by private contractors. That's not really that unusual.

    Apparently, when the CIA found out they had turned over to the Senate Committee a CIA draft report that was particularly harmful to the CIA's position, the draft report "disappeared" from the computerised document depository. The senior Senator from California believes the CIA caused it to disappear.

    It's like erasing portions of White House tapes that had been subpoenaed a la Nixon. Just because it was done by the CIA doesn't mean it was spying, merely criminal tampering with a federal investigation. That's all.

    Trust the CIA and the NSA. They will never over-reach or break the law.

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  26. Happens Everywhere by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately. People are either stupid or easily influenced. Part of it is probably the propaganda bombardment they get during and leading up to elections. Hell politicians don't even bother with that anymore, they campaign 100% of the time now.

    I have a friend who I would consider otherwise intelligent, however I could not believe his political leanings. Basically voting against his best interests. Political parties also seem to tend to create these fictional realities that people buy into. Ideologies that they proport, but never really live up to. I think the big problem is, anyone that closely follows politics would easily see through the lies, however most are so disinterested in politics, so apathetic about their vote being more less meaningless, that most don't vote, and those that do don't really pay enough attention to even make an informed decision. Also there are social status that comes into play, voting for Conservatives/Republicans means you must be part of the wealthy elite (even though your really not).

    Anyway I mean the guy in question is in a Union, and when I said that voting for Conservatives in Canada was counter to his best interests because they are anti-union he didn't believe me. His impression was that the Conservatives loved Unions and they had never ever done anything to Unions in the past. Some of the first things they did once elected were to break several Unions and force settlements, all under the guise of "for the sake of the economy" etc...

    Anyway I know a few that are informed, and swing Conservative because they believe in certain factual things, which I can respect, however most seem to just spit ideology and rhetoric, most of which is meaningless as fed to them, and seem more than happy to vomit it up over anyone else close enough to listen.

    Also not to generalize, but Old People. They tend to pay about as much attention (which is none), however are much more dangerous because most of them do vote. Most of them vote very consistently, and will proudly say that they have been Conservative for 30 years. Never mind that the Conservative party they are used to voting for has little resemblance to the one that exists today. They are not voting for someone, or something, but an idea of what they think a party is. Which is why in a rather cynical move the Conservatives apparently amended a bill recently to attempt to reduce the number of younger voters (as they more often than not do not vote Conservative). Anyway haven't really looked up the details for that one yet, but I wouldn't doubt it given their past machinations.

  27. Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers? by pcwhalen · · Score: 2

    You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

    Correct. She got it wrong here: this is not a 4th Amendment fact set.

    Just like she gets it wrong when she says it does NOT abridge one's 4th Amendment rights to have wholesale recording of citizen's phone data.

    She calls it like she sees it; whichever is politically expedient at the time.

    I do not like her, Sam-I-Am.

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  28. Re:NRA and ACLU?? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

    It should also probably be mentioned that part of why the ACLU doesn't (often) actively support the second amendment not because the members don't believe in it, but because the NRA serves the purpose well enough that it would be a waste of donations.

    --
    Not a sentence!