HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ lisper

I wonder if Senator Chambliss realizes that he's being played.

"I have been assured ... that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.” Chambliss said that any monitoring of emails is purely “accidental.”

You can't have it both ways. Either there is "no capability", or the monitoring is "accidental." It can't be both.

⬐ greenyoda

The other possibility is that he's complicit in the NSA's game.

⬐ malandrew

On this note, has anyone done any real social network analysis of all the people our congressmen and women meet regularly with? I know investigative journalists look a lot at campaign contributions, but besides those are there other sources of data from which it possible to draw association between Congressman Chambliss and people of importance in the Surveillance-Industrial complex and/or high ranking NSA officials?

I would imagine that the schedule of who members of congress meet during the course of the day are part of the public record and should be subject to a FOIA request.

⬐ jkestner

That would be a great volley back on how revealing metadata is, a la the Paul Revere piece. I know the White House has to keep these records - if congresspeople (AND their staff) don't, there oughta be a law.

⬐ malandrew

Which watchdog group (e.g. EFF, change.org) would be the best one to propose a congressional metadata law?

If our elected officials can see value in knowing the metadata of his or her citizens, then the citizens that elected those officials should be able to see the metadata of everyone his or her congressman calls, meets with or emails. The same should apply to all the senior staff of any elected official. One of the easiest way to handle making sure official meetings outside the office are logged is to only allow expense reports to be honored, when the other party in the meeting is logged.

⬐ petegrif

Great idea.

⬐ cgio

I would guess the expenses are charged to the private party in the meetings you care about. This measure would probably only make some spicy meetings more frugal :-)

⬐ dictum

Every response from the NSA and people speaking on their behalf, both before and after the Snowden leaks, has basically been

1. A denial that they have the "capability" to do [insert method of mass surveilance], leaving open the possibility that "capability" means legal authorization;

2. A quasi admission that maybe the surveillance happens (Clapper: "not wittingly").

In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."

⬐ danenania

'In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."'

Or if a random analyst is bored and finds you interesting for some reason.

⬐ baconner

or have a relationship with someone who has a relationship with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect.

⬐ coopdog

Or if your information happens to be valuable (bitcoins, passwords, stock tips, blackmail material) and can be sold without it being traced back to an analyst in any of the facilities around the world where your information is cached.

⬐ samstave

Exactly!

At this point - every single "analysts" security-clearance worthiness has been jeopardized.

I don't trust ANY NSA employee at this point. NONE.

⬐ northwest

“I was back out at NSA just last week, spent a couple hours out there with high and low level NSA officials,” Chambliss said. “And what I have been assured of is that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.”

How _dumb_ must one be to continue to trust these agencies for just about anything, now? After they blatantly lie in Congress and then dare to "apologize" for lying in Congress, how much more do these "politicians" really need to start thinking for themselves?

Have they already been lobotomized? Are they lizards? Or what else exactly is going on?

⬐ drewcrawford

> How _dumb_ must one be to continue to trust these agencies

Taking a deep breath for a moment, if you look at TFA it contains two contradicting allegations, from sources that appear to me to be roughly similarly credible.

On what evidentiary basis have you decided one source is more reliable than the other? And why are the people who believe the other source "lobotomized"?

I am not really sure what is going on here, but I do not feel that this article alone presents a sufficient basis for a reasonable person to form an opinion.

⬐ D9u

     On what evidentiary basis have you decided one source is more reliable than the other?

When one of those sources is caught in multiple lies, the prudent will tend to discount that source as untrustworthy.

⬐ dakotasmith

We could also suspect that the giant spying apparatus has compromised our government officials with intelligence gathered on anyone in a position to oppose it.

⬐ falk

It's all in the language they use. They are scooping up all the phone calls, emails, etc. they possibly can. They then go get a warrant to process that information or so they can use it in court and what have you. And like you said, getting a warrant is a joke. Especially through the FISA court.

⬐ danenania

But Greenwald is claiming that there is nothing technical stopping low level analysts from snooping on anyone without any form of authorization. This directly counters the line put forth by the national security establishment and its apologists since the revelations began.

⬐ Amadou

What Chambliss said in that quote does not contradict Greenwald's claim. When Chambliss uses the word "capability" he means legal capability. Greenwald is arguing that the enforcement of that requirement is trivial - equivalent to a checkbox that says "Do you have a warrant Yes/No?"

I am entirely willing to believe that Chambliss is simply technologically naive enough that he doesn't even know how to ask the NSA if the enforcement is meaningful. He's also probably quite happy to take them at their word, despite all their history of using their own dictionary to define their words.

⬐ zaroth

I think you're right, which of course makes the entire statement a tautology. "The NSA has assured me it's not legal to do anything that's not legal." Thanks for sharing.

Never mind that it's not legal to read emails, except with a single court order saying that it's legal to read EVERYONE'S emails. Which I believe they have.

The main problem is the "business records" clause in PATRIOT must be found unconstitutional. If it is somehow constitutional, then there is no privacy.

⬐ mpyne

> I think you're right, which of course makes the entire statement a tautology. "The NSA has assured me it's not legal to do anything that's not legal." Thanks for sharing.

That's true for the vast majority of law enforcement though.

The police have the technical ability to pepper spray you, or arrest you, or shoot you. It is compliance with policy and legal requirements that (generally...) prevent them from not shooting you, not a technical safeguard. It's policy/legal safeguards that prevent the local health inspector from arbitrarily shutting down your restaurant. NSA analysts get held to policy as well; there have been analysts caught looking up information on ex-wives, for example, and fired for cause, so while an analyst may have the technical ability to task PRISM inappropriately, it's not an unlimited ability.

Do I think that PRISM should have better technical safeguards on it? Absolutely, if only because it's easy enough to do, and the system is way more powerful than what a random county sheriff might have available to them. But I wouldn't read any more sinister connotation into the current level of safeguards; even nuclear weapons can be disabled by only 2 compromised missile techs, so this level of protection seems pretty ordinary for government work.

⬐ Amadou

> That's true for the vast majority of law enforcement though.

I think you've completely missed the point. The impression that a layman will take from Chambliss's statement is that it is technically impossible for the NSA to collect emails.

This situation is not the same as your examples like pepper spray because everyone understands that a cop with a can of pepper spray is able to use it or misuse it and no amount of legal mumbo jumbo will stop him in the moment. The naive - and intended - interpretation of Chambliss's statement is the equivalent of saying the cops don't have any pepper spray to begin with.

⬐ a3n

Another possibility is that Chambliss is either lying, or acting as a PR functionary for the NSA.

⬐ malandrew

Actually I would suspect a third possibility. It's the same problem that happens when a general visits a military base and makes rounds. Everything that is dirty will be swept under the carpet ahead of his visit so that he only sees what those on the base want him to see.

This is such a common social phenomena that it should be obvious to everyone, especially those in positions of power and administration.

If he showed up unannounced at the NSA, with a bunch of pointed questions and could talk to any NSA employee at will one on one, then he would be much more likely to learn the truth. But to show up announced, meeting with specific people on a predetermined schedule with a previously announced goal, he will only be told what they want him to know.

credit: Hanlon's Razor.

⬐ a3n

Certainly. And I'm sure Chambliss was not fooled.

⬐ vidarh

Or he sees only what he wants to see. "You don't do any of X, do you, because if you did that'd be embarrassing?". "No sir, of course not. Not right this instant".

⬐ hga

Errr, given how easy it appears to be to get a "court order" (note, that's not as high a bar as a "search warrant"), I don't have as much difficultly believing that's the case.

The case today, that is; tomorrow....

(Technical note: right now I gather the NSA et. al. are making a distinction between Hoovering up "everything", like all of Verizon Business's call records in that blanket warrant we've seen, and actually looking at them. Infamously, "collection" only referrers to the latter act. Just like how inside a decrease from an automatically increased baseline, even an increase after inflation, is called a "cut".)

⬐ None

None

⬐ peterkelly

Video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMvFj7KeGs8

⬐ scrrr

Greenwald and Snowden are my heroes of the year (at least). The amount of lies in .gov and Internet-industry is amazing.

I hope none of the involved politicians and companies ever speak of "privacy" or "security" again. It'd be embarrassing.

⬐ api

Nope, no chance anyone will abuse that.

⬐ junto

I'm not sure if anyone else picked up on this, but one of the things Snowden said, now makes perfect sense. He said,

   “Any analyst at any time can target anyone… I, sitting 
   at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from 
   you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the 
   president if I had a personal email.”

What he meant was you only needed someone's email address (or IP address) as search parameters, to return all the connected data!

⬐ thufry

Of course - Snowden was about as "low level" of a guy as they come (contractor for four months) and was able to basically access everything.

⬐ Amadou

Don't assume that contractors start at the bottom. I've got personal experience doing DoD contracting and the entire reason I was there was because I was a systems expert. Even if they had not given me root access, I could have had it at any time because I knew the systems better than they did.

The details are fuzzy due to incomplete reporting, but it seems Snowden had worked for the CIA for many years before going to Booz Allen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Career_in_the_U....

⬐ hack_edu

And if they have that, imagine what the more clever sysadmins can work they way into without proper authorization...

⬐ marze

Regarding the "court order" mentioned as being needed to listen/read/monitor, a helpful followup question might be, what court gives the order and how many such orders are in effect on average for each of the past five years.

⬐ monsterix

I have a feeling that everyone having this tool is a better situation than only few-at-the-top having it. Older people who sit at the top tend to elicit a different and often machine-like behaviour [1] on emotional or privacy matters. Their decisions are likely to be blind to what people in their privacy want - that is emotional freedom. And their micro-decisions could be worse.

Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every individual on the planet. Perhaps in competition to Google (If we don't get rid of snooping in its entirety that is.). At least we can weed out Weiners which are on one end of porn-spectrum to Camerons who say they are on the other end of porn-spectrum.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677442/

⬐ northwest

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet.

Of course you are joking. But if you think about it:

If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically:

If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

⬐ mtgx

Governments should have to give up "privacy" first, since they're supposed to be public, and everything they do should be public. Then maybe we can talk about giving up some of the privacy for citizens, too - as long as it's compatible with the Constitution (and I think this program is not even close to being compatible).

⬐ northwest

Absolutely.

⬐ MaysonL

Every average citizen's privacy is gone, to whatever extent somebody powerful wishes it to be. The question is how much privacy and secrecy will the powerful be able to enforce for themselves.

⬐ manmal

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

⬐ northwest

I'm not convinced somebody thinks for humanity when they say things like: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

⬐ 3327

Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.

⬐ northwest

Sure, we say and do dumb things when we're young. But that was not my point. I don't hold him accountable for that per se.

What I was saying is: I doubt that, at the time Zuckerberg launched FB, he was thinking "privacy is already dead, so let's see how we can make things better again for everybody" when at that same time he, being 20, said those stupid things.

⬐ rhizome

It's not meaningless, though. I would say that the reason is not that it betrays what they really think, but that older people learn not to say it out loud. In this sense you would essentially be saying, "don't judge him until he learns to hide his true thoughts."

I'm not saying this is what you truly feel, but you relate a cultural convention that perpetuates a stereotype that young people are stupid.

⬐ 3327

I think your comment is a correct assessment. Adults do learn this but in addition to learning to hold back your thoughts maturity brings many changes in view and ideology, and I suspect that as many of us might have, Zuck's ideas and views most likely changed dramatically from his early years in college to adulthood - or not. But I think the safer assumption would be it has, for the better or worse that we cannot know but personally I prefer to give people the benefit prior to the doubt.

⬐ None

None

⬐ marquis

The core issue for me in the privacy debate is not about our personal life choices - we as humans are becoming more and more tolerant every day, witness the rise of gay marriage rights and marijuana acceptance. For me it's about needing privacy between you and the power structure - restrictive laws are constantly being proposed and overturned thanks to our ability to organize in private. To go back to gay marriage as an example: there was a time when homosexuality was illegal. We'd never have gay marriage if we had the ability to shuffle through everyone's innuendo and crosstalk in the last decades and put restrictions on that activity, or know that a group of people regularly gathered at certain locations.

Take civil rights: imagine Rosa Parks calls MLK while she's waiting to get on the bus (she was a community leader, not a random instant-activist). If she made and communicated that decision to sit at the front before she got on she could have been arrested, significantly delaying historical change.

We need privacy from the power structures to maintain those rights to organize and protest and change laws, and I honestly don't see why those who are yelling about not giving up their guns because of the right to keep arms against government overrule aren't applying exactly the same concept to their right to privacy.

⬐ sanderjd

I think many gun rights activists are applying the same concept to privacy. One of the most encouraging things I've experienced in this debate is that while it certainly seems divisive, the divisions don't seem to be along party lines, or even particularly obvious ideological lines. I've argued with people I almost always agree with and agreed with people I almost always argue with. It is actually refreshing that there is actually a debate happening and that the debate seems to involve more individual opinions and less of the usual blocs.

⬐ qwerta

This is huge security issue. Is there a bug report? An estimate when it will be fixed?

⬐ qwerta

Why downvote? When NSA steals my data I want at least secure storage. This way entire NSA database will leak sooner or latter.

⬐ northwest

Hehe, you sound like Travolta in Hunting Season, I like that :-)

⬐ falk

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this.

1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to.

2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald.

3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

⬐ pvnick

This seems to have been the plan all along, and it's working brilliantly. As Greenwald said in the recent Majority Report interview [1] we are still "near the beginning of the revelations," so I think we're going to continue catching high officials in the middle of lies.

[1] http://majority.fm/2013/07/25/725-glenn-greenwald-the-impact...

⬐ lukeschlather

Please, take the time to read the article.

> “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.”

They've essentially admitted that Greenwald's information is accurate, they're just claiming that Greenwald is late to the party and they've already dealt with the problem in secret.

It's interesting, because if you go back over the testimony I'm very sure that all of the NSA denials will be in the present tense. So it's quite possible that the NSA has not been lying at all, they've just been counting on us to fill in "That has never happened" when all they've said is "we do not [currently] do that."

⬐ manmal

But, "two or three years ago" is a strangely broad phrase to use for something as huge as monitoring emails. Why did they not say "that stopped in the middle of 2011" or something like that?

⬐ falk

I did read the article. There's a lot more information to be released. Snowden took thousands of documents that he hand selected. Greenwald has said that there are more NSA programs to be exposed.

⬐ malandrew

Snowden left the NSA a few months ago. If the monitoring of emails had truly ceased 2-3 years ago, I would have expected that information to already have been aired since Snowden and the classified material he has is likely to be current enough to corroborate this claim.

⬐ bmistree

4. No actual consequences for anyone demonstrated to be lying.

Until officials are held accountable, why wouldn't they continue lying and denying? It's starting to get to the point where I'm more angry at congress members who should provide oversight, than the lying officials themselves.

As a simple example, if I'm an NSA official and contrast how James Clapper experienced absolutely no real consequences for perjuring himself [1], with how Snowden has been treated for rocking the boat, I honestly don't know what decision I would make.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...

⬐ malandrew

As a very smart former lawyer, I have no doubt that he's going to ask every question, knowing full well the answer to the question and that those testifying on behalf of the NSA are going to be left with no choice but to lie either directly or through some sort of doublespeak. They should assume that everything he asks or talks about is backed up by evidence.

Only one of two things are likely to happen on Wednesday. He discusses the truth and they admit it or he discusses the truth, they deny it, he provides evidence to the contrary that confirms both the truth and that those at the NSA blatantly lied to Congress. Either way, there is no way this can go down well for those protecting these abuses of Constitutional rights.

I'm really looking forward to this hearing.

⬐ junto

Ok, conspiracy theories gone crazy here but here goes...

GreEnwald is exposed down there in Brazil. A petty street robbery gone bad, a car accident, or a simple "sudden" heart attack, could all make this into a nothing event.

People in this kind of position have habits of "committing suicide" from the "stress":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

I would put money on the act that Gareth Williams worked on, or knew about both Tempora and Prism.

   "Williams' working life, after graduating with a first 
   in mathematics in 1996 aged 17, was spent in Cheltenham
   at GCHQ, Britain’s signals intelligence agency. He joined
   in 2001 after completing a PhD in computer science at
   Manchester University. His final role in GCHQ had been
   designing "practical applications for emerging
   technologies".

   In 2007, he applied to become a secret agent by 
   transferring to SIS, the UK's human intelligence agency 
   responsible for spies and spy recruitment. He was put 
   through a series of aptitude and skill tests. He failed.
   He also attended Black Hat 16 the same year, according 
   to an SIS witness, presumably also then staying on to 
   attend Defcon."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inqu...

Maybe he was Snowden part 1: the failed mission.

End conspiracy theory...

⬐ rhizome

Well if you're going to put all that effort into a conspiracy, why assume he's actually in Brazil?

⬐ malandrew

Possibly, however someone in Greenwald's position is almost certain to employ private security and drive in an armored car in Rio de Janeiro. I'm certain he's avoiding situations where scenarios that you listed can play out. It's not hard to do if you have decent money in Brazil. Greenwald is also likely to have friends in Brazil with security resources that could be shared with Greenwald, given that they would be aware of the danger Greenwald has put himself in because of his journalism.

The greatest risk would be bribery of his security personnel to provide a "backdoor" for an assassination. If that were the case, it definitely wouldn't look like one of the scenarios you described. It would be obvious that it is a targeted assassination.

FWIW: I'm Brazilian, have lived in both Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and have had known many people with private security and armored cars there.

⬐ danenania

Actually I think that something happening to Greenwald would make matters much worse for the NSA. They would immediately be suspected by everyone on the planet whether they were involved or not, Greenwald would become a martyr, the leaks would certainly come out regardless, and any shred of credibility they had left would be gone forever.

⬐ junto

Martyrs are only possible if the populous see them as such.

In today's world you need the media to treat him as a martyr to make him one in the general public's eyes. There is currently a smear campaign against him stating things like, "he is no longer just a journalist, but actively aiding and abetting the enemy", "aiding a fugitive", "helping to commit treason", gay with a green-card-denied-gay-lover, etc

The knives are out. He would be a martyr to a few that cared. The ambivalence in the masses to this subject is truly scary.

Greenwood is being treated like Applebaum and the other Wikileaks personnel surrounding Assange. They are viable targets as they are aiding dissenters that are determined, effective and dangerous to the status quo.

I don't actually believe that the US is going to try and remove Greenwald from the picture now, but not for the reasons you state.

The dam is breached so he is no longer a real threat. The usual process now is to control the response, public opinion and any senators that might raise any opposition.

They are very very good at it; well practiced and effective. You don't go up against the combined resources of the United States government and expect to win. This is like a gnat attacking an elephant.

If Greenwald strikes any more than a flesh wound on the US government then I'd be surprised. They are already back to business as usual and now with the added cart blanche, which is the knowledge that the public know they are being spied on, but the NSA now know that most of them don't give a shit, as long as they can still read status updates on Facebook.