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.
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
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
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?
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.
... stop being an enabler and speak up.
Nobody wants to listen. They have other things to worry about. Like lives. And even if we could get them to care, they best they could do within the system is vote for the candidate who is slightly less in favor of the surveillance instead of the candidate who is slightly more in favor of the surveillance.
...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.)