Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/nsa-asked-spying-congress-bernie-sanders

by joshfraser • 13 years ago

158 73 13 years ago

ProAm2• 13 years ago

Uhh of course they do. Why would they be exempt? If anything they are a legitimate target for fears of compromising national security.

saraid2166• 13 years ago

The goal is to have an answer on record.

ProAm2• 13 years ago

It's pretty clear they do not care about being honest on record. Nor do we do anything about it when we find them in a lie.

walshemj• 13 years ago

Well the soviet sleepers where trying to make Friends and contacts with people in government so if a congressman or Senator had an "aide" like "Katia" Zatuliveter an Aide to the MP for Portsmouth who is on the defense committee

I bet the FBI counter espionage guys would be interested

And in the Past MI5 did catch a US diplomat working for the nazi's s well as catching an MP spying for the opposition John Stone House for the STB.

Torgo• 13 years ago

Congress can fuck up the country far more effectively than terrorism. See: Congress' response to terrorism. The scrutiny on them should be ENORMOUS but instead it is exactly the reverse, they are using a billions-dollar world eavesdropping device to parallel-construction convict petty pot dealers.

dwaltrip• 13 years ago

Yes but I don't think closed door NSA style surveillance of congress people would be helpful. Government open data programs? Probably a better direction.

genwin• 13 years ago

They are also a target so that the head of the NSA can effectively control the country.

leeoniya2• 13 years ago

"...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".

drdeadringer• 13 years ago

I find it very depressing that semantics and definitions of fairly common-sense words are at the center of this particular set of weaseling.

wil4213• 13 years ago

Lawyer talk and double speak.

Bill Clinton got away with the Monica comment about sex and so will the next bunch about something different.

DannyBee• 13 years ago

Semantics and definitions are what the law is :)

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.

SDMattG• 13 years ago

It is so incredibly infuriating...and by the people who are supposed to be looking out for us.

jorgeortiz85• 13 years ago

Read the article. The Senator defines spying very specifically. So specifically that it's already clear the answer is "yes".

leeoniya2• 13 years ago

So specifically that it's already clear the answer is "yes".

would you like to put a wager on "yes" being the response he receives?

2bluesc• 13 years ago

This result of this should be interesting.

gojomo• 13 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 talking to their lovers."

f_salmon• 13 years ago

Also, for those who have missed it:

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.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet

Effectively? Nobody gets the backing of a major party for his nomination, donations, etc, without being thorougly screened and vetoed that they'll "do the right thing" to continue supporting several interests (partisan, financial, political, etc).

It's not like parties do all this gerrymandering and political games to then allow some loose canon President to realy change the system.

In that sense, they are all puppets, even without surveillance coming into play.

scottmcleod• 13 years ago

Uhh duh? Can't have those closest to you acting up..

sethbannon• 13 years ago

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?!"

SideburnsOfDoom6• 13 years ago

"leaders, go out in public and express intense indignation over the fact that the privacy of their citizens is being systematically breached, and genuine indignation when they learn that their privacy has also been targeted." - Glen Greenwald https://github.com/poppingtonic/greenwald-30c3-keynote/blob/...

gizmo6863• 13 years ago

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.

sln• 13 years ago

Yeah but if you're trying to catch criminals the signal to noise is far better with presidents, judges, and congress than with boring, normal citizens.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians

Would? That has been standard fair at least since the days of J.E Hoover.

oceanstone2• 13 years ago

In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.

Considering the NSA is recording the content of everything, let's be honest, over time they accumulate blackmail material on everyone.

This applies to elected officials, and people who haven't even decided to run yet.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

Erm, we live in a democracy. Almost anyone in the country over the age of 30 could potentially become a member of congress in 2 years or less. Being able to discourage someone from running for office is potentially just as distressing as being able to influence someone already in power.

Crito• 13 years ago

Provided a narrow law protecting only congresspeople and their staff is not all that comes out of this.

vl• 13 years ago

I guess he didn't get the memo. It's a dragnet, senator, they spy on everyone.

Coincoin• 13 years ago

That's the point. He knows very well the answer is "Yes".

ketralnis• 13 years ago

No they won't. They'll just exempt themselves from it. Congress exempts itself from tonnes of laws.

mey• 13 years ago

[citation needed]

wil4213• 13 years ago

Keeps your friends close and your enemies closer.

In this case why not spy on the people who have the power to cut your funding. Even though its clearly wrong and sounds like something North Korea does.

differentView• 13 years ago

Of course they do.

If I am controlling the spying, every top law and business school student and people close to them would be under surveillance the day they were accepted.

callcongressnow• 13 years ago

If you'd like to call or get in contact with Senator Sanders, try: http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/S000033

Just click the call button, give the microphone permissions, and then it will call his Washington office for you via Twilio.

If you'd like to find another member of Congress, just visit the root domain: http://www.callcongressnow.org/

This is a little app I've been working on and I'm just starting to talk about it today, so bugs are to be expected. If you find one, please file an issue here: https://github.com/zmaril/callcongressnow

natch• 13 years ago

Sanders ... defined "spying" as "gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business".

To the twisted minds at the NSA, there are a ton of loopholes in that language, unfortunately.

patrickg_zill• 13 years ago

I can't help but feel that this is fake outrage, given for example, this writeup of a 60 minutes interview ... from the year 2000: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-snoop-confirms-echelon-networ...

"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."

Theodores• 13 years ago

I thought of this too!

This is why the question is such a good one. When 'Snowden's grandmother' tried to out them on exactly this minor detail of spying on a congressman she did not provide any primary first hand evidence, e.g. a tape recording. It was her word against the NSA's. Obviously we believe her, or at least we do now!

So when the NSA say they have never spied on anyone in congress, they will have to carefully craft their lie. I can't wait for it!

pygy_• 13 years ago

I hope they strongly deny any spying, only to be burnt on the next morning by yet another leaked slide.

danielharan• 13 years ago

Now it makes sense. Every closeted gay Republican senator and aide knows the NSA has dirt on them, so they shut up.

(We all have stuff we don't want others to know, but few seem as common or career destroying as gay-bashing senators being in the closet)

Relevant: "Apparently to the homophobes running the NSA, chickenfuckers were a-okay — the security threat came from gays." http://pando.com/2013/12/29/snowdens-biggest-revelation-we-d...

nealabq• 13 years ago

I think the chickens were judged okay only after they'd confirmed no roosters were involved.

dpatrick86• 13 years ago

I'm confused by this. I thought this was already established fact based on declassified documents?

http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/09/27/nsa-spied-on-us-s...

jimhefferon• 13 years ago

Obviously they do. What kind of naive child would ask this question?

a3n3• 13 years ago

A child trying to draw out perjury in the same way that a prosecutor might.

ajays• 13 years ago

Gen Clapper lied once[1] under direct questioning by a Senator who knew the answer already. What makes Sen Sanders think that they won't lie again?

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...

swedegeek• 13 years ago

Does anyone feel more reticent than usual to chime in on these threads despite this being one of the most provocative topics on HN? Asking for a friend...

a3n3• 13 years ago

No, I don't. I admit that I very occasionally think twice about saying some things.

Actually I think writing about the NSA in forums like this, and in email, is the only effective way I have at trying to convince the analysts and spies that they're doing the wrong thing. [You listening, analyst spy?]

gabeguz• 13 years ago

I wonder if I can do the same thing with the MPAA:

well, yes I downloaded all those movies, but I haven't watched any of them. Really, if I decide to watch one, there is a process by which I purchase it first. Promise. It's not infringement unless I actually WATCH the movie.

rl3• 13 years ago

This was actually central to a scandal that happened a few years ago involving former congresswoman Jane Harman. The allegations claiming that she was caught red-handed in impropriety were based on NSA transcripts.[1,2]

Also, somewhat unrelated yet interesting: Harman authored an op-ed in the Washington Post a couple months ago.[3] It seems she primarily railed against the NSA, while simultaneously failing to disclose her obvious conflict of interest, and took a parting shot at Snowden in the process.

[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harm...

[2] http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ (Gleen Greenwald authored this piece.)

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for...

rbanffy• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure they keep an eye on representatives that are involved in acts of treason, such as questioning or attempting to restrict the NSA.

kyleblarson• 13 years ago

How many senators and congressman (conservative republicans in particular) are thinking "oh shit, i hope grindr uses eliptic curve crypto" right now?

schainks• 13 years ago

IMO, this is something tax dollars should pay for. Don't use tax money to spy on citizens, use it to spy on members of congress so they have incentive to behave in a less corrupt way. I personally don't mind that elected officials should have to transparently have their lives monitored. If I was an elected official, I wouldn't mind either. I'd rather it be the reason I was voted into office in the first place.

If members of the legislative branch are transparently spied on by another branch (in this case executive) of the government, it should keep corruption down, no?

Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

Related Stories