NSA More Or Less Admits To Spying On Congress

from the of-course-it-does dept

Mon, Jan 6th 2014 9:00am — Mike Masnick

On Friday, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders had asked the NSA if it spied on members of Congress. He was very explicit in how he defined "spying" such that the NSA couldn't legitimately deny it -- since the definition included collecting metadata on their calls -- something the NSA absolutely does. In response to press requests, it appears that the NSA has issued a statement to a variety of publications, basically admitting that of course it spies on Congress, because it collects everyone's data.

NSA’s authorities to collect signals intelligence data include procedures that protect the privacy of US persons. Such protections are built into and cut across the entire process. Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons. NSA is fully committed to transparency with Congress. Our interaction with Congress has been extensive both before and since the media disclosures began last June.

We are reviewing Senator Sanders’s letter now, and we will continue to work to ensure that all members of Congress, including Senator Sanders, have information about NSA’s mission, authorities, and programs to fully inform the discharge of their duties.

The key line: "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons." Meaning, basically, that they have no privacy protections when it comes to the NSA collecting data.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bernie sanders, bulk metadata, congress, nsa, surveillance

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:07am

I am Jacks's
Utter lack of surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:08am

"The key line: "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons." Meaning, basically, that they have no privacy protections when it comes to the NSA collecting data."

Nonsense Mike! Throwing your data and everyone else's in a giant pile is plenty of privacy protections! That way, they MAY look at your data, or because there's so much of it to look through, they MAY decide they don't have the time to look at the intelligence their spying has gathered on you, which means you 'technically' weren't spied on!

It's just like when a peeping Tom installs a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. Sure it gets lots of pictures of people exposing themselves or naked, but if the peeping Tom doesn't even look at those pictures, then they didn't do anything illegal and can't be arrested for the pictures their hidden cameras took!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  Wrong. You will be arrested for the 'intent' of the crime whether you look or not. Next you'll argue it's ok to download child porn if you don't look at it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    *woosh*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes I know, that was the point of my post, to use sarcasm to make a point that the NSA is violating the law. And to make fun of the bizarre logic they use to justify why it isn't illegal or isn't spying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wto605 (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:09am

Another jewel from the NSA whom can not tell the truth at any point. It hedges every thing, redefines words, and tries misdirection.

There is no oversight on the NSA. Every type of organization, every opportunity to exercise that oversight is blocked in any manner that can be thought of to prevent it. Lying to the oversight committee, no problem, claiming National Security issues to prevent data getting out, no problem, getting politicians to speak up for it, no problem. What you don't see is meaningful oversight at all.

Exactly why is congress and congress's privacy more important than the average citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  High court - Low court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  E
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't Know What went wrong reposting...
    
    Exactly why is congress and congress's privacy more important than the average citizens?
    
    So that the politicians can misbehave and remain in power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:14am
  
  Re:
  Exactly why is congress and congress's privacy more important than the average citizens?
  
  Because if someone blackmails members of Congress the outcome could be much more severe than if they blackmailed some random person.
  
  Of course, they don't have to resort to blackmail - that's far too dangerous because the person might then report that the NSA is blackmailing them, and that could be enough to bring the entire organization down. Much safer would be to simply make sure their opponents get all their dirty laundry aired. An anonymous tip that candidate X is having an affair, and which hotel they use, given to the right investigative reporter, could ruin their chances of being elected. If favorable candidate Y is having an affair, just ignore it.
  
  I'm not saying they do this. I'm merely saying that since they collect so much information, they COULD. And nobody would know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...or joking that "Hey we already had your number" and leaving it to the imagination when they lobby congress to protect these programs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevor, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:12am

Oops
The NSA admitted that it treats elected officials the same as everyone else. The NSA also claimed that it gives everyone in the US high privacy protections subject to oversight.

A while ago, this came out:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

It was discovered that the NSA gave raw data (unfiltered nor censored) to Israel. This data included information on US Citizens.

Therefore, the NSA gave private information of elected officials to Israel. and SNOWDEN is the one guilty of treason? ;)

/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: Oops
  How can an average citizen stop a government agency from committing treason?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Oops
    Step 1: understand what "treason" is and is not. The activity that Trevor is pointing to is not legally treason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trevor, 6 Jan 2014 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oops
      Eh, "treason" wasn't the right word to use, but it highlights how someone who exposes arguably illegal activity, and active spying on ELECTED OFFICIALS and then giving that information to ANOTHER COUNTRY with NO SAFEGUARDS, is the one hunted for and labeled as committing "treason" but the people and organizations that perpetuate that activity feel no adverse effects (other than wrist slapping at "hearings").
      
      /rant /rant
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Oops
  It is a philosofical question:
  Can a rogue government secret service commit treason? I highly doubt it can be defined as such. The treason would have to fall back on the persons responsible for the acts!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phillip (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:21am

As it should be
If they are going to collect this information congress should have the same or less protections than the rest of America. This is the only way to get them to pay attention or care. Normally they carve out exceptions for themselves, and thus don't pay attention to or care what they're law create. Like the TSA, congress gets to skip them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baron von Robber, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: As it should be
  Of course they will get an exception. Congress is more equal than the rest of us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re: As it should be
    To get the exception they will have to tell NSA all their phone numbers, and keep the list up to date. Unless they hand over this data NSA does not know that they are collecting information about a politician.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: As it should be
    We keep hearing the "political class" mentioned in the news when talking about elected officials. That has always struck me as a very anti-American ideology. If only a certain class of people gets elected, does that not work counter to the American idea of a government of, by, and for the people? Our country has been hijacked. We all know it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: As it should be
      You are right. All the early presidents walked away from the presidency after just 2 terms. The rest of the worlds leaders could not fathom that. Now we have career politicians who feel we are to be subjugated as we are inferior.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 9:50am

How long does that take?
We are reviewing Senator Sanders�s letter now

The letter was less than a page long, with only 1 question in it. How long does it take to review?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trevor, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: How long does that take?
  They have to figure out what they meant by "it" and "the" and "a" and every other word in the letter. BECAUSE CONTEXT PEOPLE.
  
  Also, from what we know about the NSA's capabilities, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a copy of the letter before it was even sent across the hall to the office printer...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Quiet Lurcker, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: How long does that take?
  
  How long does it take to review?
  
  However long it takes to come up with an answer that seems truthful and seems to answer the question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re: How long does that take?
    First they have to translate it into their own version of English.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Namel3ss (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re: How long does that take?
    However long it takes to come up with the least untruthful answer.
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: How long does that take?
  The NSA's delay in 'reviewing' a one page letter with only one question may be due to issues they are having with their 'truth management' software.
  
  This innovative new class of government software, licensed from SCO, keeps track of which truths you've told to which parties, and helps you to manage the picture of overall truth that each party sees over time without presenting them with conflicting truths.
  
  The NSA is being truthful to the extent that the NSA is capable of telling the truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:06am

Well, would YOU trust a US congressman?
I mean, have you seen the way those guys act? They're clearly untrustworthy. Plus, they can stroll right past the TSA without having their underwear scanned or body cavities probed; they're clearly a threat to the American way of life.
The NSA has displayed great foresight in anticipating the impending rise of congressional terrorists, or "terrorgressts". The next 9/11 is going to happen any day now, after all. (The current one's getting a little stale.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:29am

What chaps me most...
...is that the NSA did NOT answer the question. This should have been a yes or no answer. But what do you get? Doublespeak.

"1984" was a sitcom compared to these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beltorak (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re: What chaps me most...
  "1984" was a comedy of errors. they are here to show us how to do it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:41am
    
    Re: Re: What chaps me most...
    "1984" + comedy = "Brazil".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:31am

How can anyone trust these guys! Its impossible. Turns out they never deserved our trust in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:39am

And this is currently on Bernie's official website: "NSA Sidesteps Questions on Congressional Spying"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose, 6 Jan 2014 @ 10:46am

When all you have is a global surveillance apparatus, every problem looks like a silent coup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:14am

Wait until they use the info on political opponents
As I have been saying here and elsewhere, they will eventually, if they haven't already, use the info they have gathered against political opponents. Right now the NSA answers to Obama, with his track record it would be easy to believe that he is using the info against his opponents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
  'The NSA answers to-'
  
  Hah, that's a good one!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
  I wonder. Remember that video of a vibrant candidate Obama, boldly declaring that he'd stop the surveillance, compared with a recent president Obama, pale and drawn, trying to explain how harvesting metadata totally isn't surveillance?
  
  The NSA has dirt on everyone. We already know they spy on world leaders, US citizens, and US elected officials. I'd honestly be surprised if they weren't able to blackmail Obama.
  
  Of course, if that's the case, it means Obama isn't willing to put everything on the line for what he thinks is right. Which wouldn't really be news, I suppose.
  (I don't suppose we could have Ed Snowden as a presidential candidate in 2016?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 3:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
    The NSA may have dirt on everyone, but we don't need to hypothesize blackmail to explain the actions of Obama or congress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
      I think it's mostly wishful thinking, the idea that they would act in the public's best interest, if they didn't have something like that hanging over their head keeping them from doing so.
      
      The alternative, that those in charge, elected by the people, and who are supposed to serve and represent the people, instead couldn't care less about the people, and only care about their own power and prestige... that's quite the bitter pill to swallow for most people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
        I doubt there are many people left who actually think that congress represents the people's interest in any way. They do have a 9% approval rating, after all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 12:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
        True, but there's thinking they're incompetent, vs. thinking they're corrupt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait until they use the info on political opponents
        Perhaps, but most everyone I know doesn't care if it's incompetence or corruption. For good reason: the end result is the same either way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2014 @ 11:39am

it is a trick question anyway. The senator knows they are spying on them. the NSA can't give a satisfactory answer. if they say yes, they admit to essentially treason, if they say no, they additionally lie to the people overseeing their action. the NSA has to evaluate how to minimise the damage to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  That's not a "trick" question. It's a legitimate question. That the NSA will be hurt regardless of how they answer is there own fault.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 12:00pm

I read somewhere that this was just stupid grandstanding on the part of the Senator. I think there is a more interesting point being missed, CongressCritters are now aware that they are not immune from this. They often think they are left out of rules and laws (they write them that way). Now imagine how many CongressCritters might be sweating knowing that some smartass 20something could still pull a Snowden and walk their metadata out.
It is one thing to suspect that Congress is bought by corporations, it is another to connect all of those dots with hard data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re:
  '...just stupid grandstanding...'
  
  On the contrary, this seems to be one of the rare cases of political action that isn't little more than grandstanding and PR, this is, I imagine, exactly what the one who sent the letter hoped for, which is making the others in the government aware that they are having their communications tapped just like everyone else.
  
  On it's own that would be bad enough, but due to their positions, and ability to dramatically change things by writing new laws and changing/repealing old ones, that automatically makes every last one of them 'persons of interest' to a spy agency like the NSA, meaning that while most people who have their data scooped up probably won't ever have it looked at by a living person due to the sheer volume, their data does not share that same status.
  
  And as you say, it's one thing to suspect that those in government have been bought and are working for corporations, having proof of it's another matter entirely, proof the NSA would be able to obtain through their spying quite easily, which is likely to really get the congressmen and senators' attention, even if they didn't particularly care before.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 6 Jan 2014 @ 12:08pm

Wouldn't surprise me if all sorts of scandals pop up before November...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 6 Jan 2014 @ 12:27pm

who DO YOU WANT SPYING..
Who do you want spying on our Reps??
the only problem is we dont GET any of the info, of who is doing who..WE dont even get pictures..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 6 Jan 2014 @ 3:35pm

SOMEBODY should be spying on Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QuietgyInTheCorner (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:56am

Our interaction with Congress has been extensive....
Translating this, it means:
"We've been asked a lot of hard-hitting questions by congress that we've had to think hard about before
(1) evading the question
(2) using misdirection to appear to answer the question without actually doing so, and/or
(3) being somewhat "untruthful".
But this is all ok, because
(1) we're the NSA,
(2) we didn't use a computer to do it, and
(3) well, you know .. "terrorists" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]