21–30 of 77 posts
This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"
"...if the NSA has spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials" It depends on your definitions of "has", "spied", "spying", "currently", "elected" and "members". So the answer is, "No".
I find it very depressing that semantics and definitions of fairly common-sense words are at the center of this particular set of weaseling.
In this case, as the parent points out, this is entirely the wrong way to ask the question.
You don't ask them whether they did X, you ask them what information they have, and then for each piece of information, how was it acquired.
To the twisted minds at the NSA, there are a ton of loopholes in that language, unfortunately.
"...if the NSA has spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials" It depends on your definitions of "has", "spied", "spying", "currently", "elected" and "members". So the answer is, "No".
I find it very depressing that semantics and definitions of fairly common-sense words are at the center of this particular set of weaseling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said the point was to have an answer on record. The point is not to have the truth on record; that has never been useful.
So then, how is having an answer on record going to be useful?
> Acknowledgement that it has collected the communications records of American lawmakers and other officials is likely to make it harder for the NSA to argue that it needs such broad collection powers to defend against terrorism.
If the answer is no,
> The letter’s authors include surveillance skeptics like Sensenbrenner as well as those who voted against an earlier curtailment of NSA authorities, like Franks and Issa, the chairman of the House oversight committee.
> “There can be no disagreement, however, on the basic premise that congressional witnesses must answer truthfully,” read the letter, which requested a reply by 10 January.
This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"
In fairness, spying of congress (and the president, judges, etc) does seem much more concerning then spying on most citizens, as it would allow them to break the checks on their power that those bodies should provide. In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.
This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"
Uhh of course they do. Why would they be exempt? If anything they are a legitimate target for fears of compromising national security.
"America politicians may also have been eavesdropped on, says Margaret Newsham, a woman who worked at Menwith Hill in England, the NSA's largest spy station. She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago."
Only for training purposes, with recordings promptly destroyed! See from 1995 (!): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-12/news/1995346001_... FTA: "We listened to all the calls in and out of Washington," says one former NSA linguist, recalling a class at the Warrenton Training Center, a CIA communications school on a Virginia hilltop. "We'd listen to senators, representatives, government agencies, housewives tal…
Obama was being surveilled as well, before being elected:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-...
Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet (if you compare his promises and reality, it sure looks like it). And that would then mean that no future President would be able to start limiting the growing corruption, with the NSA in power.