71–80 of 145 posts
>Of course I'm not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. Why wouldn't he?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release. Absolutely not. Keeping your (nominal) overseers appraised of your activities is not the same thing at all as informing the whole world in front of cameras. Your implicit argument is that Congress couldn't be trusted with the secrets the NSA would reveal. But this is countered b…
Congress (all of it) should be briefed on the overview. The details (some of which are, rightly, classified)? No way. That's pretty much the established way of dealing with classified information - all of Congress does not get to know the details. > ...the NSA can't be trusted with the secrets it has. Very true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They might not know what the NSA is up to, but they sure as hell created the mechanisms that led to that predicament.
Congress required the NSA to clear some things with a court. The NSA lied to the court; that's not Congress's fault.
It was hilarious watching a bunch of congressmen feign disbelief when they know that its their fucking fault. Its depressing watching the public believe them. If they really didn't know this was going on, they would be trying harder now to stop it instead of passing legislation to solidify the NSA's position.
The only thing that we can be certain of, is that our elected representatives' response to these revelations is going to be disappointing, misguided, and inadequate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that they already have the framework to do this. A senator is immune from prosecution for anything state on the floor of the senate. If Wyden is on the senate floor, he could read off the nuclear launch codes and there's not a damn thing that the executive can do about it. Furthermore, the senate has closed sessions. They had one just a couple of years ago for the START treaty. A senator could take the f…
Actually I'd bet good money if a senator basically starting reading the details of NSA drag net plan on the senate floor they'd be prosecuted by some court for aiding terrorism, or not being American enough.
Article 1, Section 6 (the speech and debate clause) of the US constitution states:
"...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senator or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."
In the case of Gravel v. United States, Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. This was held as protected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole security clearance thing is rather over-rated. Many people are immediately disqualified during the background investigation because they missed a payment on something once, or changed jobs too often, or were arrested, yet never convicted of a crime. So the fact that someone does not qualify for a security clearance says very little about them as a person.
There are people that have filed for bankruptcy that managed to get a TS. It would be highly unusual to be rejected for missing a single payment, provided you are current while the investigation is going on. It would also be extremely unlikely that one gets rejected for changing jobs frequently, unless one of your former employers alleged misconduct of some sort.
"...Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me." THIS PEOPLE! THIS is why the Snowden revelations are such a big deal! We have a rogue branch government with arguably little to no oversight!
By the 21st century, the Patriots had achieved immense political power, effectively controlling America as a totalitarian regime. The organization would select who would serve as the President of the United States and would stage Presidential elections in order to please the American public, as well as tricking them into believing that as voters they had control over the government, that the nation was still being led according to the Constitution, and also utilized cut-outs when contacting the President with instructions.
Imagine that the NSA was only doing legitimate, useful, necessary, highly secret things (humor me here). Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release. So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. But who are these representatives Schneier briefed? Are they on the Intelligence Committee? If so, and they stil…
> So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. No, its not. At least, not in any principle grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.
On his blog Schneier comments that this meeting was kept small on purpose. I wanted to see who was present at this meeting so I looked up some of their information. Not hard to find, but here you go. I plan on emailing each of them and thanking them for consulting someone the tech industry considers a Security SME. Rep. Logfren (Democratic) http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congress in such a facility, but could not do so because he is denied access to such facilities as someone without the appropriate security clearances. And that puzzled me, and prompted me to read the Wikipedia article after reading Schneier's blog post submitted he…
There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I'd bet good money if a senator basically starting reading the details of NSA drag net plan on the senate floor they'd be prosecuted by some court for aiding terrorism, or not being American enough.
Ignoring the political implications for prosecuting a congressperson for leaking on the NSA, you have a lot of legal precedent to overcome. Article 1, Section 6 (the speech and debate clause) of the US constitution states: "...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senator or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." In the case of Gravel v. United States, Senator Mike Gravel read the…