Slashdot Mirror


Congress: We Didn't Know the FBI Was Creating a Small Surveillance 'Air Force'

Errorcod3 sends a followup to last week's news that the FBI is operating a fleet of planes across the U.S. for surveillance purposes. A new article in The Atlantic points out that Congress is claiming to have had little or no awareness the fleet was being built, and is asking for answers. Quoting: Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, demanded to be briefed (PDF) no later than this week on "the scope, nature, and purpose of these operations and what legal authorities, if any, are being relied upon in carrying out these operations." Sixteen House members wrote to the FBI (PDF), pointing out that the president had just signed a reform ending the bulk collection of phone records. "It is highly disturbing," they wrote, "to learn that your agency may be doing just that and more with a secret fleet of aircraft engaged in surveillance missions." They asked for the FBI to identify the legal theory used to justify the flights, the circumstances surrounding them, the technologies on the aircraft, the privacy policy used for data collected, and the civil liberties safeguards that had been put in place. Senator Al Franken has posed ten questions of his own (PDF) to the FBI.

106 comments

  1. Al Franken has posed ten questions by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only one per post!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. An honorable sense of tradition... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has there ever been a time when the FBI's activities didn't involve being deeply dodgy? From their glorious beginnings as J. Edgar Hoover's personal commie-huntin' team to the present it always seems to be something with these guys.

    1. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you use the word 'spy' or 'surveillance' its generally allowed.

      but call it agency-wide peeping toms and we'd all object.

      same thing, though. loss of privacy and some dude looking into stuff that he has no right to. mostly for jollies, too (lets admit the elephant in the room; surveillance has the 'fun' aspect for you sick-o pervs out there that enjoy that kind of thing).

      there is no 'making us safer'. its everything BUT that, to be accurate about it.

      peeping toms. that's what we are enabling. we should do all we can to refer to the mass spying in this way. maybe then they'd be seen for what they really are. perverts with legal authority to BE pervs under color of law.

      how sad that we have allowed this to go as far as it has.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It works both ways, He's not stalking her, he's providing extra security free of charge.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surveillance has the 'fun' aspect for you sick-o pervs out there that enjoy that kind of thing

      Hey, just because I'm a pervert doesn't mean I like to spy on people, and I certainly object to you comparing me to criminal scum like our government thugs!

    4. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      From their glorious beginnings as J. Edgar Hoover's personal commie-huntin' team to the present it always seems to be something with these guys.

      While I can't really argue with J. Edgar being the root of the dodginess of the FBI, it should be noted that the FBI was founded in 1908 - Hoover didn't take over until 1924...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So it seems the real problem with the FBI like so many other US government agencies, is how the Head of the Organisation is appointed and how much power they have.

      It seems pretty much a screw up to allow one single head of the FBI with all that power. Likely much like another board appointed to oversea application of the law, 'a jury'. Rather than one person with all that enormous power, appointing 12 persons with proven experience and appropriate qualifications to manage and control the organisation according to law, makes a lot more sense.

      Creating the requirement that 12 people must sit down to craft and apply policy means a solid record of discussion and validation must exist prior to any policy being applied and this enables government to review those policy decisions. Each of those 12 appointees would also hold other leadership roles within that government organisation. Consider how much better various organisation like the NSA, CIA, DOD, would run if all policy discussion and decisions were required to be public. There is absolutely no reason for one person to have total control of those organisations, it makes no sense at all and is extremely dangerous and has routinely been abused by that one person.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could make a similar argument about having one chief executive.

      I mean, why couldn't we (US) elect the cabinet members? And why couldn't they have the authority to issue all executive actions? (We could still have a President, but his/her role could simply be to act as an arbitrator between cabinet members... more or less, having veto authority over executive actions taken by cabinet members, but without direct power to order any action.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Just checking to make sure nobody else is following you around everywhere.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That is called a parliamentary style government where the head of the lower house is elected by the other elected members to be the leader of the government and can be readily voted out. The president then becomes more a figure head role, to basically ensure the other elected representatives stick to the rules.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Well after Hover died they passed a law limiting the term of the Director of the FBI.

    10. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Technically it wasn't the FBI until later while Hoover was already in charge of the predecessor Bureau of Intelligence.

    11. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, it was passed in 68, but only applied to future directors. Hoover died in 72.

    12. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by smugfunt · · Score: 1

      appointing 12 persons with proven experience and appropriate qualifications to manage and control the organisation

      Already been done: Majestic (or has it?)

    13. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has there ever been a time when the FBI's activities didn't involve being deeply dodgy? From their glorious beginnings as J. Edgar Hoover's personal commie-huntin' team to the present it always seems to be something with these guys.

      The organization now known as the FBI was originally founded as the nation's sex police. This predates the "commie-huntin" by many decades.

      Their first official tasking was enforcement of the Mann Act, which concerned the prostitution trade (1910). In those days, they had to pretend to be focused on the "interstate commerce" aspects of this, of course. There was a lot of hysteria about women being forced into prostitution, but investigation would later show the issue was massively exaggerated. Further, the US Civil War had shown that regulated prostitution was far healthier for society than the unregulated form (a lesson that would get re-learned during WW1 by the French and British armies, but forgotten by the USA, largely due to the malign influence of the religious right). Still, despite the fact that it didn't really serve any legitimate purpose (state and local governments already had the police power needed to deal with any real issues), the law was useful to certain elements in government. This became even more true once the Supreme Court decided that it could be applied to issues of morality in general (Caminetti v. United States 1917).

      Then, as now, it was convenient for the government to have a bogeyman to go after. Creating the illusion that they were doing something about "white slavery" and morality issues helped politicians get re-elected, so they could get on with the business of corruption. There were lots of religious nuts that didn't grasp the concept of separation of church and state (just like today!), and politicians were perfectly willing to do things to get the religious vote, even if those things violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights (just like today!). For whatever reason, the religious types never figure out that buying the illusion of holding the moral high ground comes at a terrible price.

      The legal profession, of course, was happy to jump on the bandwagon and support the new laws: after all, anything that increases the complexity of the law increases the demand for their services. They, like the politicians, were perfectly willing to disregard their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, especially those pesky 9th Amendment rights to ethical practice of law and ethical government.

      The whole sorry business was not very different than today, if you think about it: terrorism and "think about the children" issues have replaced prostitution and white slavery, but it's still largely about creating an illusion that the government is doing something to distract people from the real issues of corruption and ethics problems in government and in the practice of law. Madison might as well have never written the 9th Amendment: the government abuse of power it was intended to fight (and that was predicted by the Anti-Federalists) came about in spite of his best intentions.

      Efforts towards reform of this type of situation generally fail because most people don't understand that the legal ethics issue has to be addressed alongside the issue of reforming government. The two are completely intertwined: so long as the legal profession is not put into the spotlight alongside the politicians genuine and long lasting reform is unlikely to happen. We may fix the symptoms, but not the underlying disease, which manifests itself in a new form down the road.

    14. Re:An honorable sense of tradition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI implemented a program of poisoning illegal alcohol in the 1930's that killed over 10,000 people. These self-proclaimed goody two shoes that shield themselves by hiding behind the women and children they call their families are capable of doing anything to the outsiders of their extended community.

      Their goal is to have everyone on record convicted of something, thereby making every american a dirty untermenschen -- chattel property, easily manipulated and disposed of on a whim.

  3. Congress has little or no awareness... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    kinda/sorta goes with the territory.

    1. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congress gave up their rights and obligations to corporate lawyers and ALEC a long time ago. Now the defense, surveillance, energy and banking industries pretty much write the laws and run the show. So one more out of control agency among so many seems pretty par for the course in "1984 as an instruction manual" America.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by mjwx · · Score: 2

      kinda/sorta goes with the territory.

      Well yes,

      But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.

      You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Congress is supposed to know what is going on, although it is a little less direct than having an MP who has a portfolio. The Executive has a fair amount of independence, as long as it obeys the wording of the laws that Congress passes. Not necessarily the intent.

      In theory, the FBI could respond with: This is allowed under such and such program which was budgeted under this line item or which the Justice Department has interpreted its mandate as meaning it has the authority to do such and such. If there was such a law, but Congress disagreed with the interpretation, they'd have to pass a new law to clarify or convince the President or the Attorney General to overrule the FBI.

    4. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has always been like that.

      "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
      - Mark Twain, a Biography

    5. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government in 1984 seemed pretty competent at what they did. I think reality is more like Brazil.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Awww, how cute. You still think that's true.

      These particular dogs of war are slipping their leashes all over the world these days.

      If you think your parliament knows everything your agencies are up to, you are sadly delusional.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Awww, how cute. You still think that's true.

      These particular dogs of war are slipping their leashes all over the world these days.

      If you think your parliament knows everything your agencies are up to, you are sadly delusional.

      When something this big is discovered in Australia, the politicians responsible are sacked. That tends to motivate them to do their jobs a little better. No politician wants to be on the receiving end of a royal commission... and I predict a few of those after the Abbott government (and to be fair the Abbott govt fired the first shot with the Royal Commission into union corruption which was nothing more than a witch hunt for their political enemies).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.

      You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.

      It seems that politicians jobs now are to launch into ridiculous amounts of rhetoric, deceive the population in a way that makes us feel like idiots when we finally figure out whatever agenda was being rolled out and then high five each other when it passes.

      I'm from a Westminster system country too, however it was never designed for a two party system and the original purpose of evolving a nations laws seems to have been subverted to shackling the population of the entire western world to debt and a new form of slavery.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Not only do they not know, the sad thing is they don't care.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's ok if they sack people but tell me - do they actually stop doing the things they weren't supposed to be doing? No, they just bury them deeper.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Livius · · Score: 2

      No, they can take back their power and responsibilities at any time.

      Every single day that they don't should be considered a separate act of treason.

    12. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      When something this big is discovered in Australia, the politicians responsible are sacked. That tends to motivate them to do their jobs a little better.

      When something this big is discovered in America, a video of two large women fighting in a Walmart and inciting a six year old to join in the fray "goes viral" via the media. It's not like these videos or fights are that uncommon, but they go viral as if they're unique (and news).

    13. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always amusing to bash the government for being incompetent, but to really judge competence requires that we first identify the government's goals.

      If the goal is to genuinely protect Americans with maximum effect and efficiency while preserving liberty, it's pretty obvious they are incompetent.

      If you go down a darker path, and assume the goal is really to distract the public from the fact that they have no real say, keep them in fear, and condition them to submit to authority, then the government is doing a really good job.

    14. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      We are in agreement on that. And, treason is exactly what it is. We elect those asses to perform jobs and functions, and they fail to perform said jobs and functions. They are all to busy looking after their personal finances to worry about pissants who vote.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the politicians responsible are sacked

      We sack people right and left. Every time some kurfuffle happens the President puts some other sorry mother fucker on the chopping block. IRS chairman, GSA chairman, HHS... whomever. Then we get "reform"... that is; the same behavior, but more expensive.

      Employ and over pay millions of government workers and they'll build little private air forces, hide it behind shell corps and forget to mention it to anyone. That's what giant government does.

      And it will keep doing it, until the statists and libtards that built this mess come to their senses and realize their vision of a benign government big enough to enforce their worldview while simultaneously not abusing its power is an impossible fantasy. Or we run out of money. Which ever comes first.

    16. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Treason has a certain specific legal definition, which this doesn't quite meet.

      What it does meet is a failure to uphold their oathes of office, about defending the constitution.

      --
      -- Alastair
    17. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the authorities keep promising us thorough oversight in return for us surrendering our rights !

    18. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it'll keep happening until the conservatards and fauxbertarians come to their senses and realize that only a truly beneficent government will seek to address wrongs, while their own vision is a betrayal of moral responsibility and a childish fantasy that doesn't even have orcs. Or we destroy the planet. Whichever comes first.

    19. Re: Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at how much the Republicans have cut since taking power. Oh, wait...

    20. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When something this big is discovered in New Zealand, the Prime Minister assures us that it's not happening, and even if it were, he's sure it'd be under control by a responsible agency, but he'll resign if it's found to be happening. Then, when it's re-discovered, but this time with undeniable, unclouded proof, he'll just wave it away and claim the last lot did it, or that it's another synonym and so he's not resigning.

    21. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... something this big is discovered in Australia ...

      You're not seeing the problem. Australians don't have any traditional rights but they have freedoms: That's because we have courts willing to punish the government and a press willing to dish the dirt on any politician. That is changing fast: The government has written the courts out of (delivering) the law in some instances. The press has devolved into "look, terrorist" fear-mongering lapdogs and Tony Abbott bashing. This week it's his dislike of gay marriage. Now I don't like the government being led by a self-confessed religious conservative but this government with its un-Australian "Fuck you, I got mine" policies is alienating more than a few lesbians and homosexuals. If the press really wants to bash the conservative government, an unusual state of affairs, they can reveal how the standard of living is moving downwards.

    22. Re:Congress has little or no awareness... by JazzLad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, they are all bad except my congressman. He's the only one fighting for us.


      For those with faulty sarcasm detection, this is an incredibly common notion that I do not share but helps explain why we're in this mess.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  4. Good PR for congress by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like congress likes to act all indignant (certain congresscritters) and demand that executive branch agencies answer their questions and defend civil liberties, but in the end nothing ever is done. Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering. I am left to conclude that congress just puts on a good show for the masses while the media is focused, and then when things move on they go back to doing what they were doing before. Both parties.

    1. Re:Good PR for congress by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering.

      It was Diane Feinstein. Pelosi is a partisan leftist, but Feinstein is a centrist: She fully supports ALL forms of authoritarianism. If the Bill of Rights was put up for a vote, Feinstein would object to them all.

      As a Californian, I am ashamed to say, she is my senator.

    2. Re:Good PR for congress by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      As a Californian, I am ashamed to say, she is my senator.

      She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole trove of shitballs who vote for their party and don't give fuck all about what they really stand for. These bitches have had their hands around the throats of the American working class for generations.

    4. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because we think the other party has bigger shitballs in it.

    5. Re:Good PR for congress by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.

      Senators should represent the interests of the country as a whole, not engage in a prisoner's dilemma by grabbing what they can for their constituents. A good first step to achieve this would be to abolish the seniority system.

    6. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A duck is a duck regardless of plumage. A politician is a politician regardless of title lefftist, rightist, conservolibertairowarmongerousextreme they're only after 2 things in the end money and power.

    7. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's basically like the retirement-home. Don't let them see the headlines so they don't get their blood pressure up. If they do see one just tell them "There there. Here, take this medicine to help you relax."...wait for them to forget...back to business again, all is normal.

    8. Re:Good PR for congress by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Pelosi is a partisan leftist, but Feinstein is a centrist: She fully supports ALL forms of authoritarianism.

      Being a leftist doesn't prevent you from being an authoritarian.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Good PR for congress by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.

      She does; she says mean things about the "rich", coporations and the rest of the libtard boogey men. CA knuckleheads lap that shit up even as they're pounding on Zillow to find someplace they can afford to live after fucking up their own state.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    10. Re:Good PR for congress by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      As much as I despise her, her job is to represent her State.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    11. Re:Good PR for congress by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      :-) Uh huh... You're a funny guy...

      Top five contributors:

      PG&E Corp
      University of California
      Time Warner
      Walt Disney Co
      Edison International

      Yeap, she's real mean to the rich and corporations all right... Millions of dollars worth of mean and nasty. She's so mean, she *makes medicine sick*!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Good PR for congress by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      You've missed the distinction between "says" and `does'. Reading comprehension issues.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    13. Re:Good PR for congress by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I tend to tune out when confronted with all the tired old cliches there... You don't seem to understand. She wins for a reason. Everybody already knows the rhetoric is bullshit.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then vote her out! Jesus, I hate it when people vote along party lines and then complain about their representatives. Fucking do something about it!

    15. Re:Good PR for congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where you are mistaken. Everybody doesn't know the rhetoric is bullshit. Vast swaths of the permanent underclass believe the rhetoric. Since they spend most of their time watching John Stewart and the Kardashians rather than various news channels (for a balanced view) they have no idea of what is really happening.
      Instead they spend about a week and a half just before the election seeing 30 sec attack adds from underfunded opponents and vote the incumbent.

    16. Re:Good PR for congress by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Heh, well, it must be all about style with you if you think *various news channels* have any more credibility than Jon Stewart.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. they dindu nuffin by mix_left_and_right · · Score: 2

    they dindu nuffin at all...

  6. Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem to ignore a lot, don't they?

  7. Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the FBI it's all about the child (porn).

    Seriously, does anyone think that anything is going to happen? I mean other than the "White House" giving Comey a medal for keeping the program secret for as long as he did.

  8. Legal Authority by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like congress likes to act all indignant (certain congresscritters) and demand that executive branch agencies answer their questions and defend civil liberties, but in the end nothing ever is done. Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering. I am left to conclude that congress just puts on a good show for the masses while the media is focused, and then when things move on they go back to doing what they were doing before. Both parties.

    Not much will be done, certainly.

    Legal authority is pretty obvious--at least it's obvious that it's not constitutionally restricted. No warrant required under existing precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Doesn't mean they had a funding grant authorized by Congress for it, though.

  9. You know what else sucks? by sootman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seeing the same video bytes -- which I am not going to watch anyway -- EVERY TIME I scroll down the page.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:You know what else sucks? by Livius · · Score: 2

      Seriously, Dice seems truly surprised that the Slashdot crowd can tell bad user interfaces and web page designs from good ones.

    2. Re:You know what else sucks? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      Is /. trying to drive us long time members away?

    3. Re:You know what else sucks? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could move to a site similar to Slashdot but that isn't trying to slowly implement Beta.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:You know what else sucks? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      No, they're trying to suck all the money they can from their members this quarter, even if it drives long time members away.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:You know what else sucks? by evilrip · · Score: 1

      yeah, you'd think these people would take a hint eh? i guess the results of BETA is a distant memory to them :)

      --
      "To err is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the Operating System"
    6. Re:You know what else sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent News gets a miserable fraction of the traffic of Slashdot, and unfortunately the version of Slashcode they started with is ancient, and the UI is terrible. Also, they have no one with any knowledge about either databases or JavaScript. Also, the code is written in Perl, which limits their potential contributor pool.

      A for effort, but they have some big technological problems, little ability to do anything about them, and low traffic. Personally, I think they should start over with a different technology stack. Python is probably a good option. I'd like to say that Ruby would be a good alternative, but while the language is lovely, it has dependency and deployment issues. PHP is far from lovely but composer and the PSRs have put it a step up from Ruby, it could also be a good option. JavaScript is right out.

  10. Mock outrage is part of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mock outrage at what upsets your constituents is part of that 'getting elected' thing. Feinstein did the "how dare they spy on us" outrage, NSA/CIA promised in future not to spy on them, and people like Feinstein understand that these spooks have all this info on her and her family and could certainly find something, so she shuts up.

    She can point to her outrage as evidence of her views, but her opponents can't point to the private meetings or the private fears in her head, so she gets to present her views as different from her actions.

    Tiny steps, step by step is how dictatorships are built. Loss of privacy first, free speech later, one law for us another for them after that, little step by step changes.

    1. Re:Mock outrage is part of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that... and passive aggressive bitching and moaning on internet news sites which relieves the frustration without doing anything to address the problem.

  11. Cell-cite stimulators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may not get the answer they want if they ask that question! (Q3 of this request)

  12. Re: Air Max 90 Nouveaux Femme 2015 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damnit, does anybody in Congress know about this?

    If not, then there has been a serious lack of oversight in the committee on groveling.

  13. The rest of the quote: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    The beginning was:
    "We Didn't Know the FBI Was Creating a Small Surveillance 'Air Force'"

    But it continued:

    "Those jerks told us it was going to be a big impressive air force! Not a bunch of Cessna's that were rejected from crop dusting!"

  14. Stop bragging about your incompetence, Congress by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We don't have any idea how the FBI spends its money, but we vote on budgets to fund them."

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  15. Also don't know that trade treaty bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also don't know the text of that grad treaty bill you're voting on. Why the secrecy? And why don't you care?

  16. Unsurprised by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    What precisely did we expect when the dumb fuckers don't even read the bills before they vote?

    Of course it could simply be a lie, like the collusive anti constitutional deniability that congress and the white house have shared since Korea?

    --
    -Styopa
  17. Comments by mrclmn · · Score: 0

    It speaks volumes how few people are willing to comment on this subject.

  18. Jollies? My ass! by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These agencies are not sifting through everyone's personal stuff for jollies. It's fear and intimidation, and used repeatedly as a way to silence opposition and critics. Cut their budget and see all of your personal affairs made public. Defend the person exposed, and your stuff is made public. Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?

    Congress does not know where the FBI is spending tax money? What the fuck are they doing on the tax payer dime, because their goddamn job is to know these things. Fire them all and start getting people you trust on ballots, because the career politicians funded by a select few people in the country are not doing the job.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  19. What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did they expect when they gave them nearly unlimited access to funds?

  20. All I can say is... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God bless Edward Snowden. I hope there are hundreds more just like him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:All I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope there are hundreds more just like him.

      I think most of us hope that. Every few hundred years or so, someone like that comes along....

  21. FBI has an air force, Air Force has an FBI by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    http://www.24af.af.mil/

    Time to clean the Augean Stables.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:FBI has an air force, Air Force has an FBI by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Not even close to the same thing.
      For starters, the DOD has no power within our borders. They can not arrest any civilian. They can not create trumped up charges.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Re:Jollies? My ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ this is the one you should have modded +5 insightful. No, I didn't write it, but it is the *real* truth behind all this.

  23. Re:Jollies? My ass! by Falos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To put this less passionately, digging up dirt on people results in power. The dirt is a commodity. The most valuable kind, worth leverage, clout, influence, control. From this perspective, setting aside thoughts of morality and malice, it's quite the reasonable thing to do.

    Which is another way of saying, a very credible thing to expect. Whatever is "just good business." can be considered increasingly certain at higher scales.

  24. THIS is scary by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    I have not had an issue with NSA doing its spying. The reason is that they have no real power.
    However, the FBI is a major part of the DOJ and all Americans should be TERRIFIED of this.
    And if anybody believes that CONgress had no knowledge, well, they are just plain fools. Even when I was working on the USA PATRIOT act back in 2005-6, we KNEW that CONgress knew everything that we were up to. Yeah, the GOP claims that they had no knowledge, but the NSA informed them constantly on it.
    And now, CONgress claims to not know that FBI was spending 10-100s of millions on aircraft and CONgress was not informed????? Yeah. Right.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:THIS is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody will listen to you if that capitalization persists. Yeah it gets the point across, but so does screaming profanities. Both will get you ignored.

    2. Re:THIS is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody will listen to you if that capitalization persists. Yeah it gets the point across, but so does screaming profanities. Both will get you ignored.

      If you have a hard time distinguishing between the capitalization used in screaming profanities and the capitalization used to EMPHASIZE a point, you have bigger issues.

  25. Ah but will you shut it down? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Saying you didn't know means little when your response when you do know is to do nothing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  26. Re:Jollies? My ass! by Ramze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FBI was set up specifically so that Congress can plausibly deny the things it does. They gave it a charter with a broad scope, lots of funding, then stuck their heads in the sand so that they don't have to admit to what the FBI does on a regular basis. Now, Homeland Security can say anything/everything is a state secret and not even admit to Congress itself what it's been doing on a regular basis. It's appalling how many people have lied before congress about the things Snowden revealed only to backtrack later and admit they were indeed lies. I'm surprised no one went to jail for lying to congress.

    As for the clowns in congress, most work for their corporate and union sponsors, not American citizens. They should have patches on their suits to identify their sponsors - like race car drivers. Good luck voting them out. Their parties gerrymandered their districts to make sure they get voted back in. They also wrote the campaign finance laws. Our "vote for one candidate = a vote against all other candidates" system is at the heart of why we're stuck with a 2 party system. Both parties are bought, so when you go to vote, you basically pick between Kang and Kodos.

    http://memecrunch.com/meme/7AQ...

    We don't live in a democracy or even a democratic republic -- we're a Plutocracy. Corporations are people, money is both speech and power, and the rich generally control not only 99% of the wealth, but also 99% of the government.

  27. history by Torvac · · Score: 1

    Should have learned from J. Edgar Hoover's shit. But congress members interests are things that make them money.

  28. The FBI might be creating a LARGE Air Force... by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

    ... for all Congress knows. There are two meanings to the word "oversight" and Congress seems to have picked the wrong one...

  29. Got a question for him, too: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it the job of congress to keep tabs on the government?

    This would imply a requirement to stay up to date with what's happening elsewhere between the horsetrading and the fillibusters.

    1. Re:Got a question for him, too: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress is one branch of the government, so your question is a little off. Yes, it is congress' job to oversee the bureaucratic agencies that they create through legislation. It is also their job to act as a check on the other two branches of the government. A better headline would read "Congress: We're totally incompetent!".

  30. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think what you want of the morality or wisdom of all the spying going on in the USA. The scariest part is that even congress are clueless about it. Whether the FBI, CIA or NSA, they are a law unto themselves. They do what they want with impunity. At least if congress signed off on it you could say that you voted for the guy who signed off on it. But as it is, they are out of control.

  31. BTW by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    As a Californian, I am ashamed to say, she is my senator.

    Yeah, but WHY IS THAT STILL TRUE? Does Orange County and San Diego truly control the entire state? I guess so, given that if this state was even half as progressive as they like portray themselves, by now, no one would even remember her.

  32. Al Franken is a clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot take him seriously.

  33. BULL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress has the responsibility to know and has no excuse. members of congress are equally guilty.

  34. Nothing to see here by PPH · · Score: 1

    The FBI isn't doing anything outside of current regulatory structures. If its legal for the police to fly around with FLIR systems on helicopters and park cars with Stingray cell equipment outside the local gang hangout, what is the FBI doing that is different?

    It's up to Congress to keep them accountable for performance. If they think air surveillance is an efficient way of doing business, they should be able to justify that expenditure.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI are federal. The police are local. Different legal systems. What is legal for one is not necessarily legal for the other.

  35. Re:Jollies? My ass! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?

    This is what happened to Elliot Spitzer in my opinion. He was aggressively going after Wall Street crime when the revelations about his paid-for love life came about. I'm not saying he wasn't having sex with prostitutes. But come on, lots of powerful men have sex with prostitutes.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  36. S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know where this will end up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicarrier

  37. Re:Jollies? My ass! by jfengel · · Score: 1

    Has there ever been a country (or any political unit) that wasn't a plutocracy? Perhaps some are better than others, but I can't think of any government where the rich don't exercise a lot more control than the poor.