Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA
schneier.com
schneier.com
Rep. Logfren (Democratic) http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren
Rep. Sensenbrenner (Republican) http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner
Rep. Scott (Democratic) http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Scott_%28U.S._politician%...
Rep. Goodlate (Republican) http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/about-bob Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte
Rep Thompson (Democratic) http://mikethompson.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Thompson_(California_polit...
Rep. Amash (Republican) http://amash.house.gov/about-me/full-biography Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash
Edit: Cleaned up one of the links and got rid of a repetitive sentence.
So often when I email my reps about their decisions I get canned response that don't answer the question, but Justin really does explain it.
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!
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.
Even if you're talking as about changes to it in the PATRIOT Act, that was passed on October 26, 2001. Each congressional district has had 6 elections since then, so some of these congresscritters never voted for or against the creation of the court. Of the ones that did, how many were on the committee that produced this? How many read it? http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...
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.
Let's think about the end game. Suppose the Klayman lawsuit [1] goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and they too find the NSA's metadata collection is a 4th Amendment violation. The NSA is ordered to shut this and similar programs down. They comply. They say "we've complied." But how do we know? How do we know they didn't just spin up new collection programs, out of sight even from the overseers, or perhaps even with the tacit approval of the overseers? How would we find out?
Whistleblowers like Snowden. That's the only protection I see for us here. If the government promises they've complied, but in fact they haven't, they've just doubled down on the damage another revelation to the contrary would create. And doubled the moral imperative that a principled person would feel to leak it.
Oversight = Whistleblowers.
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agen...
So the fact that someone does not qualify for a security clearance says very little about them as a person.
If you missed a payment there is a section of the background paperwork you fill out proving information on it. It is very likely you would be denied if you left that section blank and had a missed payment, or if you changed jobs, or addresses very often and did not list all of them with proper references so they could verify them. But you will be denied basically because you lied not because of the missed payment or address changes.
It's true that many people are denied because of their finances, but it's not as cut and dry as you might think.
You also have to wonder what some of these people were thinking. That the DoD wouldn't notice you're on probation and a drug user?
"Applicant was born in Iran. He left Iran in 1985, was educated in the United States, married a native-born U.S. citizen, and became a U.S. citizen. He adopted an American name when he became a U.S. citizen, and he gave American names to his children. He has never returned to Iran. He held a public trust position for three years. His sister is a citizen and resident of Iran, but he has never visited her in Iran. His parents and two brothers are citizens and residents of the United States. His older brother held a security clearance for six years. Although his parents live in the United States, they spend about six months of each year visiting their daughter in Iran. Security concerns are mitigated by Applicant’s deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 12-11015.h1 "
"My guess is that because I am untrusted, I might plant a bug in the SCIF. So it's less that I'm not allowed in, and more that if I was allowed in they would have to re-SCIF the place."
There are. Schneier has it wrong unfortunately (or at least, was misinformed). You can enter a room approved for classified information without a clearance, you just must be escorted by someone who does have one. I've been in such a room myself without a clearance. I imagine what you were told about a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees was true then and is still true now.
There is an unfortunate amount of misinformation flying around and it really detracts from what might otherwise be a productive discussion. I hope Schneier takes a but more time to double check his assertions in his next post.
And you're blaming Schneier for his assertions?
Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, but it's not cheap. (You can also potentially keep the person under observation the whole time, but given the purported Chuck Norris powers of Bruce Schneier, that seems insufficient.)
Infruriating Hog-wash! This security theatre is baloney, and it is the Great Wall, itself .. erected precisely to allow the Security Classes to control their mignons.
SCIF's? Why are they even necessary in the first place, in a society that prides itself on Freedom Dogma?
This is not democracy - this is tyranny!
If a private citizen cannot have a safe conversation with people who represent them, then you do not have representation but total interference. The American Super-Security State has definitely usurped the basic principles of democracy from its true owners.
The procedures for handling classified information, especially SCI and ECI, are there to protect from foreign intelligence services. i.e. people doing exactly the shit NSA is accused/documented of doing to foreign governments.
A normal secured room (which is also swept for bugs, is kept physically secured by the Capitol Police, etc.) is perfectly adequate for normal secure communications between citizens and elected officials.
I sure hope the people he is talking to are 'monitoring' him while he talks to them. It would be a waste of time if they didn't pay attention.
Do you not understand that there is nothing honorable about this agency, and this infrastructure? At all? The system is entirely corrupt, corruptible, and absolutely functional as a tool for political power. This is not the time to be milquetoast on the devices we are discovering are being used, indiscriminately, with World-changing powers, by people who were not authorized to do so by the democracy that allowed them the luxury of doing such things, for a living.
These people have constructed their own private search engine - consisting of EVERYONE ELSES DATA. Anyone who cares about the society our children will inherit, must act to promote the destruction of this heinous info-apparat! Before, indeed: it is too late.
There are but 3 small tigers in between the free democratic society and totalitarian fascist state, and those tigers are made of paper, electrons, and gasoline ..
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 still can't get straight answers out of the NSA, that's a big deal. (And maybe the rest of Congress is saying that they don't think that the Intelligence Committee has done an adequate job of oversight.)
What secret is worth keeping if its keeping results in oppression, tyranny, inhumanity? Why should those who are given the right to murder, get away with murder - just because it is 'unsafe' to prosecute the murders?
The reason, always given, is "[some secret reason]". Well, the saying goes, keep the secret .. or else! Or else .. 'bad things happen'. Yet .. Those who work tirelessly to keep secrets, are themselves the bad things .. happening.
What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all!
It is only when a secret is kept that lines are drawn between two life-forms who would otherwise, ordinarily, be cooperating/communicating to increase their combined potential. Profiting from this - always - is another, third life-form, whose control over the others' secrets will give him two slaves.
The answer to your question: Congress, if it were doing its job, would have already read Snowdens' statements into the public record, and there wouldn't be any debate about the criminal proceedings that would then follow: all the tyrants would be frog-marched directly to jail.
It may yet .. still .. happen. Let us wait and see.
> What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all!
This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs.
I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.
But I see you are limiting your viewpoint to 'what is real' and not to 'what could be done differently about the situation'. That's okay with me, to 'keep it real'.
But I have no desire to live in a society ruled by its secrets, as the USA (and other sham states) are. If we are to have true freedom, it must include freedom from the liability of having to keep a secret. The USA is almost imploding against the weight of its own secrets; which serve to hide crimes, and little else.
Beneath every revelation of a state secret is a crime that was committed - or will be committed - against another human being. A catalog of tools whose sole purpose is the mass-violation of human rights, in hands other than 'the elected officials deemed worthy enough to hold the keys', is a criminal instrument. I do not personally agree that we need to construct such things; it is because of profit from suffering that such things are allowed, in the secret chambers of the American Security Elite.
We need a trusted entity to check what you are saying is true.
Troop locations are another one. If you know exactly where everything is it gives you a huge advantage, and to a lesser extent where they've been.
Surely there are some secrets we can acknowledge the government can keep, for a time. The problem only arises when the executive branch abuse the classification system and label embarassing, non-sensitive (to the country, maybe not to their reelection) information as sensitive information.
Turn the light on the whole thing; make all procurement open to the public, simply put a 24/7 webcam on anyone who is functioning in a government role, and let it work. Open communication is the only thing that has truly propelled the species forward .. and yes I acknowledge it is 'a radical position' with fatal flaws, but alas ones viewpoint doesn't always have to be .. Right .. now, when discussing the nature of our abundant universe..
Now, I assume everyone here is mature enough to understand the distinction of things that should be kept secret and which not, and i shouldn't be wasting anyone's time (including mine) into giving an explanation of what matters require secrecy, and in what cases certain secret things should be made public
Either everyone gets to know the President's credit card number or it's tyranny?
For instance, there's probably a billing account or two assigned to just the office. That wouldn't be personal, but wouldn't be something the state just passes around either.
You could retort that's still not "state secrety" enough. We could then exhaustively try to separate the sheep from the goats, but it's probably just a definitional minefield.
We can probably skip all that and agree on the broader point, though: absolutisms aren't very useful here. They're seductive because of their intellectual purity. But despite our best intentions, we're inevitably going to end up haggling over what's a good secret or bad.
Probably many people will have different opinions on that question that are all prima facie reasonable, but that's ok, just so long as we avoid adopting an all or nothing approach because it seems easier.
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 by opinting out that the NSA can't be trusted with the secrets it has.
> ...the NSA can't be trusted with the secrets it has.
Very true.
No, its not. At least, not in any principle grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.
This is a silly question to ask. AFAICT, Congress hasn't ever been briefed on the day-to-day of wartime activities. They are often lied to about our motivations for declaring war. That's obviously a very bad thing to do.
[0] The funny thing about stuff that's classified for OPSEC reasons is that it has a really short shelf life. That is to say, stuff that's sensitive OPSEC stuff can often be declassified in a matter of hours or weeks... because the actions described by the classified information have taken place and everyone knows that they took place. (e.g. information about troop movements in preparation for tomorrow's assault would be sensitive until the assault happens.)
Minor quibble - this isn't always true.
If a hacker knows two vulnerabilities to exploit, but only exploits one of them, he keeps an advantage by keeping the extent of his intelligence a secret. If he only knows of the one that was exploited, he's not benefitted by admitting a lack of intelligence.
Apply to enemy troop positions and competitor pricing strategies as appropriate.
I know. That's why I said "often can be declassified", rather than saying "always can be declassified". :)
But they're also not normally briefed on the high-level view of intelligence sources and methods, to ensure that those sources and methods remain available. During WWII it's not like the Navy briefed Congress that they could read much of the Japanese Navy's messages.
And even with that precaution the U.S. Navy came perilously close to tipping off Japan. A journalist embedded with Naval forces somehow gained information that the U.S. Navy had known Japan's fleet composition at Midway before the battle, and that was published in the Chicago Tribune. If Japan had been paying attention she would have realized that her ciphers were very possibly being read and taken countermeasures that would have destroyed the usefulness of that intelligence source.
To be clear, I think Congress has the right to have access to whatever information is needed to effectively oversee the NSA. But I don't see how that would imply all 535, every 2 years, being read-in to full TS and SAPs and given all details. That would make more sense for the specific subcommittee charged with overseeing intelligence, but unfortunately (for privacy advocates), that's the very same panel of people most supportive of NSA.
I don't think Executive Branch secrets from Congress -- that is, things that will not be disclosed honestly on request by the Congress as such (which is not the same as individual members of Congress acting on their own) -- are ever justified or necessary, in war or peace.
To the extent that secrets (e.g., from the enemy in time of war) are necessary for which not routinely disclosing information to Congress is justifiable as a security measure, the Executive acting appropriately to maintain the confidence of Congress in its use of its discretion so as to avoid Congress needing to demand information which should be kept secret is equally necessary. Any President who honestly feels that they cannot protect the security of the nation while responding to Congress's demands for information should recognize that they have failed to maintain the confidence necessary to function effectively as President and resign.
Foreign enemies are always a convenient excuse for lack of domestic accountability, but they are never a sufficient excuse.
I was a defense contractor during the Cold War, a scary time in many ways.
It profoundly troubles me that the military intelligence complex is acting like we are still in the Cold War. The world changes and things done in the past are often not the rigt things to do in the present and future. This is a brittle mindset, looking at the past and not the current situation.
Further, there are procedures that exist to do so. Sealed sessions have been and are used for sensitive subjects to avoid inadvertent disclosures.
"All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes" are what we have. Their existence, their ability to speak freely without fear of prosecution, their diversity of opinions & constituencies, and their power to change things, function as a crucial check on the power of the executive branch. As representatives of the people it IS THEIR JOB to ensure that large secret programs that the public would never approve of, or which violate their oath to abide by the Constitution, are either reformed adequately or leaked, neutralized in some way, cancelled, or never funded in the first place. If they fail to do that for long enough because they've decided they're not able to, or because they don't want to know, then this all falls apart and becomes tyrannical the first time we get a President that wants power.
Notably, it ceases to be an option for Congress if the objectionable business is objectionable because it's a spy program that been turning Congressmen into blackmailed sycophants. That is hardly out of the scope of the technical power we have granted the NSA.
If they have created these programs and they've started to take on a life of their own, to the point that Congressional oversight and regulation is not adequate to control their activities (and yes, it appears that is what happened), then we have one option: Kill the tumor with radiation and a clean scalpel before it metastasizes further. Defund, publicize, interrogate, leak the objectionable programs, and end them. Maybe catch some loyal civil servants who were just following orders in the crossfire; But that's how it goes - they became an enemy, foreign or domestic, of the people and their Constitution. Too bad.
Sure, we might lose some tissue, but it's a damn sight better than letting a malignant cancer of our democratic system run wild.
"Are you spying on suspected terrorists?" - "Of course we are. That's our job."
"Who are you spying on, and how?" - "We can't reveal that. It's National Security."
"Are you spying on people that you have no reasonable suspicion of being terrorists?" - "No."
"Fine".
The problem comes when you have lie about that last one when asked by Congress.
I don't know how they do it now, but the Intelligence committees should also brief the rest of Congress at least twice a year, and I think they should be allowed by explicit laws to declassify anything they want in that briefing. No approval from the White House or anyone else needed. They are, after all, the ones that are supposedly in charge with oversight of the intelligence community.
So next time someone like Ron Wyden knows the agency is lying to the public, he should be able to tell the rest of the Congress in the briefing, all by himself (he shouldn't need approval from the rest of the committee), and it should be defined in laws that he's allowed to do that, just so there's no confusion, and no fear of repercussion.
This seems to be a solved problem.
That's why I'm saying that it should be explicitly mentioned in the law that a Senator can do this in Congress, during that Senate briefing. It shouldn't be some vague power that states Senators can do a lot of stuff without fear of repercussion.
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.
You can't have oversight unless you have expertise in the area you oversee.
You can't have oversight unless the overseers can impose immediate consequences upon the overseen.
Without these you are nothing but a spectator.
One aspect of the Dilbert-universe the pointy-haired boss who has no expertise, yet he imposes immediate consequences upon the overseen. In contrast, if we are calling for management that does (understand) code, we are calling for management that have expertise.
This begs the question: who would be able to oversee the agencies with expertise, ever?
NSA staffers have defined roles and are given information on a need-to-know basis. Obviously the Snowden leaks proved that at least for a sysad, the technical component of the need-to-know restriction was broken, but that's how it's supposed to work.
For Congressional oversight to be useful, Congress (or a subset) need a higher level of access than that given to the NSA themselves - the ability to ask for any information and have it given to them.
That's a pretty powerful tool, so I don't think the "well NSA has lot of people" counter is valid.
If i did, then your parent seems to want the same thing. He means that "there are 535 people in congress" is a bad defense.
Though i might have gotten you incorrectly and you might have meant that you cant say "but NSA employees have access! The congress should have it too!" Because giving access to congress is different to giving access to NSA employees as Congrees needs a VERY high level clearance to all 535 members, and that in the NSA itself, the actual number of people who have that kind of access would be very small.
Please, elaborate.
We're talking about people we trust to spend trillions of our dollars, decide if we fight a war, and make decisions that affect the entire country and world. It's some kind of Tom Clancy dream to think that their should legitimately be a higher level of clearance than elected congress and senate.
Oversight without congress? What do you mean, just some executive appointees? Maybe a private contractor bound to secrecy? Can they just be fired if the oversight is not liked?
Having said that, I'm not sure what bureaucratic obstacles the executive branch has put in place to obtaining classified information.
Edits: my guess: (Secure Communications Internal Facility)
https://duckduckgo.com/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_F...
http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/00605...
Startups and science fiction... that book is a favorite of mine.
I believe the name "Enoch" is a hint though. Enoch in the Book of Genesis is the father of Methuselah and importantly did not die (but was instead "taken up", which admittedly is not much more clear than Cryptonomicon...)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
Why wouldn't he?
The film Enemy of the State, and conspiracy theories mean that normal people think it is the status quo that our lives are under 100% surveillance and that they are powerless. In a way its been argued that this is quite comforting. Imagine a world where no-one knows what they are doing versus imagining a world where there is a conspiracy, an evil plan. What this type of public culture makes and what the worst conspiracy theories do is make politics seem hopeless, encourages apathy and reduces trust in politicians. At the same time it makes it easier for the real abusers of power to get away with it.
The recent phone tapping cases in the US being a point in case. Everyone thought it was going on all the time anyhow, so when it was revealed no one was suprised, and so the consequences were slight.
To know that those in power do actually think, and do listen, and do believe in the political process is very very vital.
Here is a start: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CybersecurityThreats
Regardless of their motivation, these people are still part of the same machine that put the NSA in motion, and thus far have been ineffective in curbing even it's more obvious breaches. Action speak louder than words...
How do you get that message to people?