Slashdot Mirror
Senator: 'Plenty' of Domestic Surveillance We Still Don't Know About
An anonymous reader writes: In a recent interview, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has complained about the Obama administration's failure to shut down the NSA's bulk collection of phone metadata. This program and most other programs we've heard of were disclosed by Edward Snowden. But Snowden couldn't tell us everything. When asked if there were further domestic surveillance programs about which the public knows nothing, Senator Wyden said, "Yeah, there's plenty of stuff." The ones he knows about are classified, so he couldn't elaborate. "Even in cases where the public has been informed of government practices, Wyden warned the government still collects far too much information on millions of citizens with virtually no accountability."
It's too bad that Wyden isn't half the patriot Snowden is. We need someone in authority to step up, tell the American people what is going on, and take the heat for it. The last 2 administrators have been so anti-liberty that one can make the argument the government is no longer working for the people.
In the end the worrying thing is not that "they" are watching us, it is that they do everything in their power to stop us watching them. Whether by voting you government in or even by abstaining they are still your government and you must do what they say - including going to war. But if you are unable to watch them then democracy itself becomes no more than a marketing exercise.
... stop being an enabler and speak up.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If a bunch of Republican senators could get together and write a letter outlining the details of these abuses, I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences (to themselves) whether the spying is classified or not. Plus, it would be a great way to limit the powers of the federal government and stick it to Obama at the same time!
5 seconds later, he'd be arrested for revealing classified information. Then the American people would vilify him as a traitor for letting the terrorists know how they're being watched, and he'd be put on trial for treason. In the end, it would make no difference. Nothing will until the majority of the people actually care and desire to not be spied on.
This space intentionally left blank
one can make the argument the government is no longer working for the people.
The argument for that is that study showing no correlation between public demands and representatives votes in congress, but high correlation with corporate interests (lobbying / legalized bribery).
As for when the people will care -- it'll be after a big scandal involving the abuse of domestic spying powers. Reporting on the spying itself will never disturb most people. A report on say the IRS borrowing NSA spy data to repossess people's guns, on the other hand, will cause a frenzy.
This space intentionally left blank
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
And besides, he's a senator. He is actually in a position to talk and be heard by people that matter. Moreover he's the one telling us that there are even more programs, and that he disagrees with the expansive privacy violating abilities the make possible.
The downfall of this "more perfect union" is going to be from within and in the name of protecting it from terrorists.
We need someone in authority to step up, tell the American people what is going on, and take the heat for it.
So Wyden spills the beans, goes to jail, and then we're left with no one on the inside that will let us know that the intelligence community is still overstepping their bounds. As a bonus, after Wyden tells everyone what's going on, the executive branch refuses to take any action and continues to cow the legislature into letting them do what they want because the rest of the Intelligence Committee is largely a stunning exercise in uselessness.
As long as he remains in office and on the Committee, Wyden is doing more good being on the inside - certainly more good than those like Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, or my own state's elected dickhead Marco Rubio. Only in the event Wyden loses his place on the Committee or fails to get re-elected would coming out and telling everything he knows be potentially useful.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Too bad he's not in a position where he could write some sort of law about it. If you can't fix the problem from there, the problem's not fixable. I'm guessing the majority of the American public either approves or doesn't care. I guess in which case, is the problem even a problem? I mean clearly some people here and this guy seems to think it's a problem, but if the vast majority doesn't agree, are you going to tell them they're wrong? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of fascism. Just sayin'...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And then he would be the senator from Russia!
Actually, I do not think he would live that long. Someone would probably kill him, be arrested and convicted in a blindly public way, and while we think he is in prison- back in D wing playing house with Buba, he would be doing covert operations in foreign lands under his real name or another cover name.
I think he has to be more tactful than just releasing information. Perhaps getting drunk and slipping a name or two out so a reporter could follow the clues and find the story on their own and have all the republicans blame the vice president would work? It worked for Armatage.
He's not doing anything useful. He is not telling us anything that can't already be assumed to be true. He mentions the existence of more classified programs, but that should not come as any surprise to anyone with an ounce of awareness. He sits of the oversight committees, asks inconvenient questions, and is otherwise ignored there.
So what use is he?
Wyden's on-record questioning of James Clapper – wherein Clapper answered "No sir... not wittingly" to Wyden's "Do you collect any information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" question – is cited by Snowden as the event that pushed him over the edge, and caused him to disclose the US domestic spying programs. Wyden's patriotism set the whole thing in motion.
See the Wikipedia article on the Speech and Debate Clause or read it for yourself in the Constitution. So he can talk all about the program during a speech on the floor of the Senate, and nothing can be done to him.
Sousveilliance means basically watching the watchers. In this modern world collecting information about people continues to get easier, not just by governments but by the business world as well (Google and Facebook to name a couple of prominent examples). The only real defense the general public has against this is to watch back so we can stem the abuse of the data collected.
Author David Brin writes a lot about this at his blog, Contrary Brin including his current post, "Armed with Cameras". His basic thesis is that you're not going to stop all of this enhanced surveillance even if you pass laws against it. It's too easy to do. So the answer is to sousveil, watch back intently enough so we can call the watcher out on their abuse.
BTW, I'm proud to have Ron Wyden as one of my Senators. He's in a position to know an has been at the forefront of curbing government abuse of surveillance for a long time.
Look at the whole thing this way:
1. Edward Snowden told us what we had already suspected, but the things Mr. Snowden told us is just a very tiny part of the big picture
2. Ron Wyden, as a senator, knows things that Edward Snowden doesn't know, but he can't tell us the things that he knows because they are classified
3. Even as a senator, Ron Wyden himself are not told of many things that are going on, as there are very highly classified things that even senators like Ron Wyden has no authority to know
4. Things like that have been running for a long time
Now think ...
They are telling us that they are doing all these to protect us, but we know that's a lie
So what are they protecting?
Are they protecting the country - the United States of America?
If they are protecting the United States of America they wouldn't be violating the Constitution of the United States of America doing what they do
For sure they are protecting something, not the country, not the people, not even the POTUS. No, they do that to protect something much more important - so important that they willingly go against the Constitution of the United States of America, and they lie to the Congress, they lied to the people, lied to everyone
What is there that are so important to protect that propels them to do all these???
...is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
If the government has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Like all members of the federal Legislature (the House and the Senate), Wyden is Constutionally protected from being punished for any action taken in the course of his official duties. (Dipshits from both parties have gotten out of drunk driving tickets by saying they were on their way to the Capitol, so this is a pretty broad protection.) If Wyden obtained a classified document about surveillance programs and ordered it read into the Congressional Record, which is a routine thing that Senators and Representatives do, he couldn't be punished for it. (The Pentagon Papers were read into the Congressional Record this way, for example.)
It'll be a BFF. Busting Feeding Frenzy. Stay out of the water.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Who gives a shit? It feels good to attack others. Giving them credit for when they do the right thing doesn't build up my ego, so fuck that.
Ah, but there is; however, you won't like it. All this extra spying consumes resources, resources that would be better spent elsewhere...over time and as it increases, there is a noticeable drag effect on the economy. So you see, those shadowy creatures won't be kept in line by a shining white knight come to save us, but rather by the proverbial laws of thermo-economics.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has complained about the Obama administration's failure to shut down the NSA's bulk collection of phone metadata.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The US Constitution was written to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the majority. The problem is judges who can't read plain English, and will rationalize to give the other branches whatever they want. The Supremes deserve contempt.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This just proves that Wyden, like all other critters, is out for himself and his fellow mates.
A lot of baloney talk about you and your rights, but when it comes to the grind, he's still a shill and a fraidy cat.
Make them afraid of YOU...... DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT CANDIDATE.... EVER!!!
There is no reason for it. They are all scum, there is no reason for you to give any of them the leverage of a second term.
he doesnt realize (along with all the other candidates) that one if the easiest ways to get a front runner status in this election is privacy concerns. We need another snowden, but we need one to blow the lid off things even bigger and even faster. At first i liked the slow trickle but now i want the dump
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
one can make the argument the government is no longer working for the people.
The argument for that is that study showing no correlation between public demands and representatives votes in congress, but high correlation with corporate interests (lobbying / legalized bribery).
In a system that supposedly carries out the will of the majority of people, you must agree it's odd that gay people are roughly 3% of the population and states everywhere are legalizing gay marriage, yet over 2/3 of Americans admit they have used marijuana (probably there are more who won't admit to an illegal act) and its recreational use remains almost universally illegal, with only a few states as exceptions to this.
Both the homosexuals and the marijuana users deserve to get what they want. Neither are criminals, neither are victimizing anybody, both are trying to live their lives and follow their own idea of the pursuit of happiness.
They are recording every call, every e-mail and text. It is all stored for later analysis if they need it. If this were "only" meta-data, they would not need the Utah Data Center.
As a result, they probably have a lot on each congress critter to use as blackmail.
If the government has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
Wrong when directed at you, just as wrong when directed at government.
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
Getting the public riled up doesn't appear to solve the problem of the government sneaking around doing illegal stuff. If you want this to stop, you must solve the problem of how to force the government to follow the rules first.
Speech and debate clause.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In the end, it would make no difference. Nothing will until the majority of the people actually care and desire to not be spied on.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion but everyone I've talked to definitely have strong opinions on the matter. Not one of them thought that government spying on it's citizens is a good idea.
Just because you don't see people protesting in the streets it doesn't mean they don't care. I think you'll see how much this issue matters to people in the next presidential election.
It has been revealed in court that the FBI borrows NSA spy data to make drug arrests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... Now will it change?
"Constutionally protected from being punished"
you are misinformed in more than just your spelling, sir. The only thing that I can think of that you may be referring to is the national defense act where party members granted themselves immunity from war crimes. LOL! I would love to see that tested in court. Where does it say in the constitution that our legislative branch is immune from the laws that they themselves make?
He's a patriot, he isn't going to violate his oath just to push his agenda.
I support his agenda to scale back these programs, and I support him doing it from within. He's almost the only one trying, and I'm proud that he represents my State.
"Constutionally protected from being punished"
you are misinformed in more than just your spelling, sir... Where does it say in the constitution that our legislative branch is immune from the laws that they themselves make?
Sorry about the poor spelling, I was on a cell phone at the time. Anyway, you're looking for the Speech or Debate Clause, which is in Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution.
The Senators and Representatives shall... in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place
The Wikipedia article on the clause has a couple of good examples of elected representatives getting off for things.(they don't mention the dirtbags who got off for DUIs by claiming they were en route to the Capitol.) They even have an example of a Senator reading a classified document into the Congressional Record.
I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA had some secret 'blackmail files' for use in that situation. Everyone has something to hide if you dig deep enough, and the NSA knows how to dig. One thing that this whole subject has taught us is that just because something sounds like the paranoid ramblings of a consiracy theorist nut doesn't mean it can't also be true: The government really is reading your email and monitoring your phone calls, and they really have collected information on the pornograhy-browsing habbits of political figures outside of the US with intent to discredit those who are hostile to US interests. Is is that much of a stretch to think they would do the same to their own government? It would be easy enough to justify as the patriotic thing to do - removing from power a figure who, however well-intentioned, would be exposing the country to terrorist attack or even invasion.
Wyden's on-record questioning of James Clapper â" wherein Clapper answered "No sir... not wittingly" to Wyden's "Do you collect any information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" question â" is cited by Snowden as the event that pushed him over the edge, and caused him to disclose the US domestic spying programs. Wyden's patriotism set the whole thing in motion.
I wonder if Wyden really knows this... and realizes where it may lead. If political ambition is his goal he could take it to the top some day. In 2015 Americans view 'the government' as the No. 1 Problem to solve. Unfortunately the issues they are most upset with -- such as healthcare -- are extremely partisan.
Domestic NSA surveillance is NOT a partisan issue. Who will chair the first Church Committee of the 21st Century? Senator Frank Church warned us waay back in 1975,
"Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everythingâ"telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
"If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
As Snowden has revealed, we are at the edge of the abyss. As I have repeatedly warned in these forums, this furor over so-called phone call metadata is a limited hang-out, a diversion from the clear and present danger of full content backbone taps at interconnects. And here in Wyden's remarks we get a glimpse that there is more to the story. A 21st Century Church Committee is needed.
Here's what Wyden needs to do:
1. Call a press conference to announce that there is enough cause in the publicly available Snowden leaks, as well as certain other details he is privy to and cannot disclose, to form a 21st century bi-partisan 'Church Committee'. He would need to give a quick recap of those 1975 proceedings for those who are historically challenged... but it would make for a very interesting and well televised event.
2. Call another press conference the very next day. This one to publicly announce and air out any personal dirty laundry he may have. Extra-marital affairs, investments with conflicts of interest. Unless there is murder in there not only will he get a free pass, but people would take notice if he states that he is 'clearing the field' and proactively mitigating any attempt to leak this information as a distraction. He can also point out that whether or not they would take such action, they may be in possession of this information, and that is what the Committee hopes to address.
3. Get the ball rolling.
It's time to pull the chain and flush the NSA. I call for the death penalty -- that is complete defunding (including black budget), complete dism
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
The problem is that he is a Democrat and from Oregon. This basically means that he will be vilified by the right. And for those of you who think I am being a political hack the Democrats are just as bad when someone like Rand Paul does it too. Remember when our side does it, it is great but when the other side does it they are helping terrorists win or are racists.
Time to offend someone
Not one of them thought that government spying on it's citizens is a good idea.
Seems that you know people who actually care and don't fall for the BS "if you have nothing to hide" line. If I look around at the people I know who are closer to what would be considered the average American most of them seem to support these actions. For example my mother puts it as at least they are trying to do something. My sister will repeat the if you have nothing to hide line, while her husband, a former Marine, thinks the programs should be expanded.
I think you'll see how much this issue matters to people in the next presidential election.
So by using the results of the last election and the one before it I should expect it will mean fuck all.
Time to offend someone
It was also built to be a living document; to change and flow with the will of the governed. Since majority of the governed don't seem to care or are ok with it, its completely constitutional. That being said, I'm moving to the Caymans, or I hear Amsterdam is nice this time of year.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Drug users/dealers are considered guilty, so that doesn't bother most people.
This space intentionally left blank
That's very interesting. Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of the Congressional Record method of exposing classified documents.
One wonders if this clause might also explain some of the blatantly unconstitutional legislation that's occasionally introduced (since it's been suggested elsewhere that such an action should be punishable by law).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I would say rather that SCOTUS has saved us from much abuse by the majority, but that their reading of the Constitution is not sufficiently strict -- itself a hazard of considering it a "living document" as the other reply contends. But I say if its meaning can be changed, then its meaning can become anything, depending on the whims of tomorrow's interpretation.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If you talk to average people on the street, you'll find that a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority ARE riled up -- but don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't have a plan for halting, let alone reversing surveillance creep -- do you??
The best I can do from here is to vote for pro-privacy and small-government candidates. Small government is important here -- when it's small and preferably a bit under-funded, it doesn't have the resources to waste on watching average Americans (nor on crap like the War On Drugs, which I think is basically the same issue with a different approach).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Ron Wyden is the peoples politician from Oregon. Time and time again he has stood up for our rights and got legislation passed when he could. Just look up his record. Thank him when you can for being there and doing what's within his realm. He really pushes back against corporate thuggery. As for senor Snowden you already know how I feel about him and I URGE you not to waste your next presidential vote and write in Edward Snowden as a candidate to let the nation know what we think. It is the BEST way to poke the 2 Parties in the ass and let them know how important he is to our rights that are getting trampled on. NO SECRETS no spies needed...
They do not need to read it into the congressional record to be protected under the Speech of Debate Clause of the constitution. Listen to the first senator, Gravel, that ever exercised this right speak. He was uncertain of the legal grounds, so he intended to read it into the congressional record as part of a filibuster. This was prevented by process, so he called a subcommittee hearing and read it into the subcommittee record.
This senator now states that the supreme court ruling about his actions protects legislatures from prosecution when divulging state secrets in the interest of public debate.
Watch what he has to say here: http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/12/16/former_senator_mike_gravel_on_putting
I can only find one case where a senator has tried to use this to get out of a DUI and his attorneys are asserting that the senator is protected under the Kentucky Constitution clause, not the federal constitution. The case is set to be heard May 5th of this year.
One wonders if this clause might also explain some of the blatantly unconstitutional legislation that's occasionally introduced (since it's been suggested elsewhere that such an action should be punishable by law).
That's exactly what the clause is for. It protects legislators from being arrested for advocating for things (or proposing laws) that the executive dislikes. Even if the executive dislikes a bill because it's unconstitutional, he can't have the sponsor arrested.
That would be quite a trick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...