Slashdot Mirror


Spy Chief Pressed For Number Of Americans Ensnared In Data Espionage (reuters.com)

Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: U.S. lawmakers are pressing the nation's top intelligence official to estimate the number of Americans ensnared in email surveillance and other such spying on foreign targets, saying the information was needed to gauge possible reforms to the controversial programs. Eight Democrats and six Republicans made the request to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a letter seen by Reuters on Friday, reflecting the continued bipartisan concerns over the scope of U.S. data espionage. "You have willingly shared information with us about the important and actionable intelligence obtained under these surveillance programs," wrote the lawmakers, all members of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee. "Now we require your assistance in making a determination that the privacy protections in place are functioning as designed." They requested that Clapper provide the information about data collected under a statute, known as Section 702, by May 6.

34 comments

  1. Heh, that's easy to answer by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Informative

    All of them

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Heh, that's easy to answer by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> All of them

      Including illegal aliens, or whatever they're called today, and anyone else with an email address, cell phone, etc. who may have engaged in the suspicious, terrorist-supporting act of "accessing the Internet."

    2. Re:Heh, that's easy to answer by s.petry · · Score: 1

      All of them, forever. Yes, even the unborn.

      FTFY

      --

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

    3. Re:Heh, that's easy to answer by PPH · · Score: 2

      Including illegal aliens

      Not them. They have rights.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  2. I know the answer by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Zero Americans have been caught. As once you look at a terrorist you become a terrorist to and instantly become unamerican. Since you are no longer an American those rights no longer apply to you. /knee jerk sarcasm might be in the above viewpoint

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  3. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does it matter? This man is just going to lie before congress, and nobody will challenge any statement he makes.

    1. Re: Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true

  4. Grandstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is grandstanding. Unless this information is released to the public and/or affects actual policy change, neither of which is likely, this reflects the desire of Congress to get attention in an election year.

    1. Re:Grandstanding by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well yeah, they are a tiny bit concerned the reelection rate might dip below the usual 95%.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're asking a known liar who lied UNDER OATH to congress to supply them with information in order to make a decision?

    If I was in congress, I would demand this man be replaced with someone who can at the very least tell the truth UNDER OATH.

    1. Re:Really? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> a known liar who lied UNDER OATH to congress

      You know we're likely to elect such a person as president this year, right?

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is when someone is under multiple oaths, then which one takes priority? Most here would say congress trumps all others, but they would be wrong. There is a well defined legal framework for clandestine operations - there are no quotable examples because there are no public examples.

    3. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? When has Trump lied to Congress?

    4. Re: Really? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> When has Trump lied to Congress?

      Google "trump testified before congress". I think we already know Hillary's story. And you can probably put Cruz in that pile too unless you believe in infallibility.

    5. Re:Really? by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2

      Problem is when someone is under multiple oaths, then which one takes priority? Most here would say congress trumps all others, but they would be wrong. There is a well defined legal framework for clandestine operations - there are no quotable examples because there are no public examples.

      So true. As always, my ultimate allegiance is to my crossed index and middle fingers, concealed behind my back.

      And thus does democracy flourish.

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perjury is a crime, plain and simple. If the information he was asked was something he felt he couldn't talk about outside of an intelligence briefing, he should have said so, rather than perjuring himself.

    7. Re:Really? by sjames · · Score: 2

      No. No oath he has taken requires perjury before Congress. His other oaths may call for his silence before Congress.

    8. Re:Really? by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

      Silly me, I thought his oath was to uphold the Constitution.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    9. Re:Really? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Silly me, I thought his oath was to uphold the Constitution.

      That old rag? Nobody in the federal government has taken it seriously since at least Woodrow Wilson. If there were justice done, the top leaders/administrators at FBI/CIA/NSA and every Executive Branch agency would be put in front of a firing squad.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Really? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Every single one of those fuckers has lied under oath. They're not gonna call him out on it.

      --
      C|N>K
    11. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about your oath to the constitution? If you are in the Intel community, and you are hovering up all comm of your fellow citizens, then you are already in violation of your first oath. Multiple oaths? Yeah, he broke all of them.

    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're asking a known liar who lied UNDER OATH to congress to supply them with information in order to make a decision?

      If I was in congress, I would demand this man be replaced with someone who can at the very least tell the truth UNDER OATH.

      Yes. I think it is nearly impossible for an NSA insider to tell the truth. My lawyer had to pound an NSA Colonel with "Yes, the first amendment is just a TECHNICALITY, one you better heed".

  6. Something seems odd here by TexasDiaz · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but I read this as: "We're thinking about punishing you, but we don't know what you've done wrong. Can you make us a list of everything you've done wrong so we can determine how much to punish you? Thanks!" And you expect an unbiased answer?

  7. Two bulls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Clapper went on to tell the old joke about the old national intelligence director and the young national intelligence director. The young ones says, "Hey, look at that bunch of Americans down there. Let's run down and spy on that one."

    The old national intelligence director replied, "No son, let's walk down and spy on them all.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. You want the truth? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Next question, please. Seriously, though, even the NSA admitted that their "threshold" on their software was 51%. Clapper could always say "yes, the privacy protections in place are functioning as designed. We never designed any or put any in place, so everything is functioning quite well."

  9. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Clapper should be fired, he has already lied under oath, Do we need a compulsive liar in a job like that? Point is, asking him questions is stupid, what makes you think he is going to answer truthfully? I think we need to replace him, for national security purposes.

  10. That's not sarcasm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word you're looking for is "realism", previously known as "cynicism".

  11. Re:Ask Obama instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just liek he knows that you fantasize about getting spit-roasted in your parent's basement you neck-bearded troll

  12. dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://vid.me/O6Bq

    It's a double.

  13. Yuh 10 characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comey and Clapper in a tree
    L-Y-I-N-G

  14. He should have been prosecuted before... by son1dow · · Score: 1

    ...after he lied the last time. http://thehill.com/policy/tech... Since he didn't, why would he tell the truth now?

    1. Re:He should have been prosecuted before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll make him pinky swear this time.

      I sure hope they don't let him redefine 'collect' like they like to do.