Telco Giant Vodafone Looked At Journalist's Phone Records To See Who Was Leaking Info To Her

from the that's-illegal dept

Down in Australia, it appears that phone giant Vodafone is facing a bit of a scandal as it's come out that the company went digging into a journalist's phone records after she wrote some stories about security flaws in a Vodafone system. Remember, a decade ago, when there was a big scandal at HP, when it spied on board members to try to stop leaks? That was bad. This is worse. This is directly violating a customers' privacy, just because you're upset about some leaks.

In a 2012 email from then ­Vodafone Hutchison Australia head of fraud Colin Yates to then Vodafone global corporate secu­rity director Richard Knowlton, Mr Yates warns of the “huge risk” to the company if a string of allegations — which he “has no reason to believe” are not factual — “gets into the public domain”.

Of particular concern to Mr Yates was the hacking of the “call charge records and text messages” from the mobile of Fairfax investigative reporter Natalie O’Brien, then a Vodafone customer.

On January 10, 2011, the day after O’Brien broke a story about major security flaws with Vodafone’s Siebel data system — ­including that private call records could be illegally accessed — ­Vodafone investigators had discussions about searching her phone records to find the Vodafone sources for the story.

You can see the story by O'Brien here, in which she revealed that people could access Vodafone customer information, because a source she was talking to had the password to the company's database. This resulted in an investigation by Australia's Privacy Commissioner into Vodafone's security practices. Meanwhile, Vodafone tried to play the whole thing down as a "one-off incident" of someone abusing the password to the system.

Meanwhile, in the background, they were abusing their own systems to try to figure out who was talking to O'Brien -- and were admitting internally that they were misrepresenting the real situation publicly:

Following her story, Vodafone executives allegedly “told the press, the NSW Privacy Commissioner and other high-profile Australian agencies that the breach was a one-off incident”.

Mr Yates wrote to Mr Knowlton: “As you know this is in fact not the case and VHA has been suffering these breaches since Siebel went live and did nothing or very little to close off the weaknesses that allowed them to occur.”

Investigating a privacy breach by breaching the privacy of the reporter who exposed it is... perhaps not the proper response.

Filed Under: australia, journalism, leaks, natalie o'brien, privacy, security, sources, spying
Companies: vodafone

The Faulty Google Search That Set Off A Constitutional Crisis

from the code-is-law dept

We already wrote about Jason Leopold "accidentally" receiving a letter the CIA never actually sent that was an apology for spying on Senate staffers, but there was a lot more that Leopold received in that FOIA dump as well. Beyond the document Leopold wasn't supposed to receive, the 300 pages handed over by the CIA (not by its voluntary desire to respect FOIA stipulations, but rather because a judge told it to) provide additional details about the alleged Senate breach and its "investigative" spying -- and the ensuing fight that set off something of a Constitutional crisis in the separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Leopold's article goes into great depth on the subject and is well-worth reading in its entirety. One of the many, many details worth noting is that the CIA's "firewall" between it and Senate staffers wasn't really anything of the sort. A Google-powered custom search function allowed staffers to search CIA documents, but only the documents the CIA wanted them to see. The problem was that the search didn't work correctly. Keyword searches were returning documents the CIA hadn't approved for Senate perusal. This was how the hidden Panetta Report was discovered.

The CIA claimed Senate staffers had abused their privileges by accessing and downloading documents the agency hadn't meant to make available. But the blame was misplaced. The search "appliance" configuration itself was faulty, and had been for years. And, from there, the CIA decided it was okay to spy on the Senate staffers' work, raising questions about the separation of powers.

"In November 2012, the RDI team learned of a vulnerability with the Google appliance, related to configuration settings that had been in place since the initial installation in November 2009," the OIG's report says. "[The Office of Inspector General] reviewed an April 2013 email between members of the RDINet IT staff detailing the existing settings, which indicated an access control deficiency for search results. The RDI IT team updated the Google appliance in April 2013 to reflect this change. Prior to this update, the settings provided to the [Office of Inspector General] showed that the Google appliance was not configured to enforce access rights or search permissions within RDINet and its holdings."

Weaver explained that the Cyber Blue Team concluded the Google appliance "wasn't enforcing permissions properly, and revealing accessible locations for the [CIA] files."

A problem the CIA was aware of but had never bothered to fix was now being portrayed as a breach of trust (at best) by the Senate staffers compiling the Torture Report. Brennan knew about the misconfigured search tool but still went after Feinstein and Senate staffers, accusing them of "hacking" the CIA's system and making off with a purloined copy of the Panetta Review.

Considering the Panetta Review was the former CIA director's own investigation into the CIA's torture programs, one would assume these documents would be highly relevant to the task at hand -- the compilation of the torture report. But the findings contained in it were so toxic the CIA immediately began burying the documents using every opaque agency's favorite hiding place: the oft-abused "deliberative documents" exemption.

US officials told VICE News that the Panetta Review was shut down for one reason: the CIA team conducting it discovered damning inconsistencies in reports agency officials made to Congress about the efficacy of the program, and horrific details about the way detainees were treated. These revelations by the CIA's own employees contradicted agency officials who had continued to publicly defend the program's value. The internal reports the Panetta Review team wrote, US officials told VICE News, were so troubling that a decision was made by agency lawyers to mark them as "deliberative" draft documents, thereby protecting them from disclosure via FOIA.

Leopold's article is a fascinating study of CIA deception, duplicity and retaliatory abuse. The only way the CIA could have made the aftermath of the Torture Report's release worse was to do all the things it actually did. It made false accusations against a Senate oversight committee. It made blatantly false claims about Senate staff and their "hacking." It stabbed its own Inspector General in the back, publicly impugning him and his findings. It performed an "internal investigation" that managed to "uncover" only the wrongdoing of others. The only act of contrition in this whole debacle went unperformed when CIA head John Brennan chose to toss his apology to the Senate in the nearest file cabinet. The CIA may have had a chance to salvage a small part of its reputation, but instead attempted to bluster its way back to respectability. And, in doing so, lost any respect it had remaining.

Filed Under: cia, configuration, constitutional crisis, dianne feinstein, google search, jason leopold, john brennan, senate, spying

CIA Accidentally Releases Apology Letter It Wrote, But Never Sent To The Senate For Illegally Spying On It

from the sorry-not-sorry dept

Jason Leopold -- terrorizer of FOIA staffers throughout the US government -- has again obtained documents many would have expected to remain out of reach for years to come. Certainly, the CIA thought one of the documents would remain its little secret for the rest of whatever.

On July 28, 2014, the CIA director wrote a letter to senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss — the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) and the panel's ranking Republican, respectively. In it, he admitted that the CIA's penetration of the computer network used by committee staffers reviewing the agency's torture program — a breach for which Feinstein and Chambliss had long demanded accountability — was improper and violated agreements the Intelligence Committee had made with the CIA.

The letter was never sent. Instead of an apology, the Senate received accusations of impropriety after the CIA threw out its Inspector General's report on the breach and performed an in-house "investigation" clearing the CIA of wrongdoing.

The letter was never signed by Brennan or sent. It was filed away somewhere in the CIA's archives, hopefully never to be seen again. But it was mistakenly handed over to Jason Leopold much to the CIA's chagrin. Additional chagrinment ensued.

After VICE News received the documents, the CIA contacted us and said Brennan's draft letter had been released by mistake. The agency asked that we refrain from posting it.

We declined the CIA's request.

So, the CIA has yet to officially admit any wrongdoing (as in a document -- such as the one it didn't want released -- entered into the public record), and yet, there's an admission of guilt in the public's hands. Makes it a bit harder to defend actions Senator Feinstein claimed violated pretty much everything that could be violated in a single act.

Feinstein wrote to Brennan on January 23, 2014 and told him she consulted with the Senate's legal counsel, who informed her that the CIA's search of the Senate's computer network "may have been inconsistent with the separation of powers principles embodied in the Constitution and essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities."

"Second," her letter continued, "the search may have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution, various statutes (including federal criminal statutes, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Executive Order 12333," which says it's unlawful for the CIA to conduct domestic spying.

In short, it appears that while some in the CIA knew what it did was clearly wrong (and potentially illegal), top management so insisted on denying it, that it wouldn't even send an apology letter -- and that would have stayed completely secret if someone hadn't slipped up and handed over the unsigned letter accidentally in a FOIA response dump.

Filed Under: apology, cia, foia, jason leopold, senate, spying

Tired Of Losing Legal Challenges To Its Surveillance, UK Government Secretly Changes Law So It Can Win

from the that's-cheating dept

Against all the odds, legal challenges to UK surveillance are succeeding, as Techdirt has reported. At the forefront of bringing cases against GCHQ is the rights group Privacy International. In May 2014 it asserted that GCHQ's activities were illegal under the UK's Computer Misuse Act (CMA), which criminalizes breaking into digital systems. A year later, and just hours before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal hearing of Privacy International's complaint against GCHQ, the UK government revealed the following:

only a few weeks after the claim was filed, the [UK] Government quietly introduced legislation on 6 June 2014 that would amend the CMA to provide a new exception for law enforcement and GCHQ to hack without criminal liability. The change not only affects Privacy International's claim, but also grants UK law enforcement new leeway to potentially conduct cyber attacks within the UK.

That is, the UK government was implicitly admitting that GCHQ's activities were, once again, illegal, but fixed that problem with the simple expedient of changing the law to make them legal. That on its own is questionable, although some might say that spies and the police need to have immunity when carrying out certain authorized acts. But the real issue here is another: the fact that this change was pushed through with none of the usual scrutiny or debate accorded to laws with important effects. As Privacy International explains, although the UK government published an explanatory note about the proposed amendment, it neglected to mention its true impact. Moreover:

It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGOs or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes. There was no published Privacy Impact Assessment. Only the Ministry of Justice, Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office, GCHQ, Police and National Crime Agency were consulted as stakeholders. There was no public debate.

This is essentially secret law-making, where the only people consulted are the ones who will benefit. That's troubling at the best of times, but especially so in the context of a government abusing its powers to avoid yet another embarrassing defeat in the courts.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: gchq, legality, nsa, privacy, secret law, spying, surveillance, uk
Companies: privacy international

CIA's Shrugtastic Response To Hacking Apple Security: 'It Is What It Is' And 'That's What We Do'

from the meh dept

We just had a story based on the Intercept breaking the fact that the CIA holds an annual hackathon (the CIA calls it a "Jamboree") to come up with new ways to hack secure systems, inviting in various contractors and government agencies. Much of the work is focused on hacking Apple's security, inserting backdoors and generally degrading security and encryption for everyone.

The CIA refused to comment on the Intercept's original story, but the reporters got former FTC official Steven Bellovin to sum it up as:

“Spies gonna spy,” says Steven Bellovin, a former chief technologist for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and current professor at Columbia University. “I’m never surprised by what intelligence agencies do to get information. They’re going to go where the info is, and as it moves, they’ll adjust their tactics. Their attitude is basically amoral: whatever works is OK.”

Now, "unnamed" anonymous CIA officials seem to be picking up where that shrugging comment left off. Talking to CNBC reporters, the CIA folks give similarly "meh" kinds of responses:

"That's what we do," the official said. "CIA collects information overseas, and this is focused on our adversaries, whether they be terrorists or other adversaries."

Except, of course, they don't just spy overseas. The CIA has done domestic spying as well, and the descriptions of the projects don't just impact people overseas. And then there's this one:

"There's a whole world of devices out there, and that's what we're going to do," the official said. "It is what it is."

It is what it is. That's someone who clearly doesn't care one bit about the negative consequences of attacking security and inserting backdoors that can harm everyone, just so long as they can also spy on people they don't like. You know, like the US Senate.

Filed Under: backdoors, cia, encryption, hackathon, jamboree, privacy, spying, surveillance
Companies: apple

Former Head of GCHQ Warns Of 'Ethically Worse' Kinds Of Spying If Unbreakable Encryption Is Allowed

from the is-that-a-threat? dept

In their attempts to kill off strong encryption once and for all, top officials of the intelligence services are coming out with increasingly hyperbolic statements about why this should be done. Here's another, this time from a former head of GCHQ, Sir David Omand:

Sir David, who was director of GCHQ from 1996-97, said: "One of the results of Snowden is that companies are now heavily encrypting [communications] end to end.

"Intelligence agencies are not going to give up trying to get the bad guys. They will have to get closer to the bad guys. I predict we will see more close access work."

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which reported his words from a talk he gave earlier this week, by this he meant things like physical observation, bugging rooms, and breaking into phones or computers. Omand went on:

"You can say that will be more targeted but in terms of intrusion into personal privacy -- collateral intrusion into privacy -- we are likely to end up in an ethically worse position than we were before."

That's remarkable for its implied threat: if you don't let us ban or backdoor strong encryption, we're going to start breaking into your homes. And it's striking that Omand regards eavesdropping on all the Internet traffic flowing in to and out of the UK, or collecting thousands of sexually-explicit webcam pictures, as less reprehensible than a tightly-targeted operation against a few suspects. His framing also implies that he thinks those pesky civil liberties groups will protest more about the latter than the former. In fact, what defenders of privacy and liberty generally want is simply a proportionate response with judicial oversight -- something that is straightforward with targeted "close access" work, but impossible with the blanket surveillance currently employed.

The good news here is that Omand has indirectly confirmed that the current strategy of rolling out strong encryption as widely as possible is the right one. Provided it is not derailed by any government moves to weaken crypto, it will increase the cost of online surveillance, and force intelligence services to return to targeted spying -- which is what they should have done in the first place.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: david omand, encryption, ethics, gchq, spying, surveillance

Chris Christie, Port Authority Official Abused E-ZPass Data For Their Own Ends

from the just-some-harmless-toll-data,-right? dept

What data is harmless in the hands of the government? Apparently, not much. Case in point: the data collected by E-ZPass transponders. While the system helps alleviate traffic congestion, it also tracks drivers' movements. If you thought it just triggered toll payments, you're drastically underestimating the government's desire for data.

Back in 2013, Mike covered one NYC driver's experience with his E-ZPass device, finding it was triggered all over the city -- not just on toll roads. The company claimed the signal was scrambled and travel data collected in aggregate. Whether or not that remains true is open for debate, but even the data collected where drivers are expecting data collection can be revealing. E-ZPass data has been used in divorce cases to prove a spouse's whereabouts as well as against a city official, who falsified time sheets.

It's also been used in political fights to disparage opponents. The IBTimes reports that two New Jersey government officials obtained Senator Frank Lautenberg's EZPass records and used them as political fodder in a battle over toll increases.

"Respectfully, Senator, you only started paying tolls recently," [Port Authority Deputy Chief Bill] Baroni said, according to a transcript of the exchange. "In fact, I have a copy of your free E-ZPass," he continued, holding up a physical copy of the toll pass Lautenberg had received as a benefit from his tenure as a Port Authority commissioner. "You took 284 trips for free in the last 2 years you had a pass."

Governor Chris Christie himself disclosed further information about Lautenberg's driving habits.

At a press conference, he alleged that the senator didn't "pay for parking at Port Authority facilities" and said Lautenberg went "through the tunnel to New York three or four times a week in 2005 and 2006."

I find it interesting, too, by the way, in 2005 and 2006, that he went over the Hudson River 284 times. Where was he going?... I think he needs to answer that. 'Cause he's supposed to be the senator from New Jersey. So what's he doing going over the bridge or through the tunnel to New York three or four times a week for 2005 and 2006?... Did he ever spend any time in New Jersey?

Obviously, this is an abuse of government-collected data. Bill Baroni admitted during the 2013 Bridgegate scandal investigation that he possessed driving data on those interrogating him. To add insult to injury, the governor's office claimed it had no records on Lautenberg's driving habits in response to IBTimes' 2012 open records request -- the same records he used to criticize Lautenberg in an earlier press conference.

The ACLU points out that not only is this a misuse of private records, but this sort of situation is completely avoidable.

EZ Pass and other electronic toll booth systems should have the option for anonymous use, where money on the devices is treated like cash, for users who prefer privacy to the convenience of having named accounts. A driver, in other words, should be able to buy a transponder for cash, and use cash to store and re-load value on it. The Washington DC Metro system, for example, offers this option for users of its contactless transit passes.

Obviously, whatever protections the state of New Jersey affords these data are inadequate. Sure, driving in public isn't necessarily private, but the use of travel data to attack political opponents is still an abuse of state-collected data. Supposedly, the data is exempt from public record laws, which locks citizens out of acquiring the data without a subpoena. But nothing's stopping the Port Authority from using it for its own political ends and passing it on to the governor to do the same.

Driving on public roads may not be private, but there's a lot that can be ascertained about a person simply by looking at this data -- information that could only otherwise be acquired by nonstop physical "tailing." When collected and stored, it runs the risk of being abused. The Port Authority already grants police open access to the records (limited only to "purposes of discharging their duties," whatever that actually means in practice) and has shown its willingness to puts its self-interest ahead of state law when it comes to disseminating this information. Better policies and practices are in order, and Governor Chris Christie should be waist deep in investigators (a belated call for a DOJ investigation of Christie and Baroni has been issued by NJ Congressman Frank Palone) rather than considering a 2016 presidential run.

Filed Under: bill baroni, chris christie, e-zpass, frank lautenberg, new jersey, politics, privacy, spying

CIA Internal Review Clears CIA Of Senate Hacking Allegations; Claims Senate Improperly Accessed Classified Documents

from the CIA-says-CIA-did-nothing-wrong.-No-news-at-11. dept

Now that the long-delayed CIA Torture Report has been released, it's time to find someone to blame. Not for the torture, of course. There will apparently be no punishments handed down for the abuse uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Also, apparently, there will be no huge international fallout. Remember just a few short weeks ago when we were promised increased terrorist activity if the report was released? Still waiting…) But there will be some noise made about the Senate's alleged impropriety.

One-man transparency army Jason Leopold reports at Vice that the Senate allegedly stole documents from the CIA -- documents they weren't supposed to have access to. But the credulity of this assertion really depends on how much you trust the source.

Contrary to accusations leveled by the Senate, a 38-page report has found that the CIA did not breach the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers and spy on them while they were investigating the CIA's torture program.

The report was released today by the CIA. And is based on a review conducted by a CIA accountability board.

What the accountability board's review did find, however, is that Senate Intelligence Committee staffers stole documents from the CIA and violated an agreement it entered into with the agency over the use of a classified computer network. On several occasions between 2009 and 2013, while the committee was writing its report, committee staffers allegedly gained access to CIA documents they were not authorized to see — such as a spreadsheet that contained a list of videos apparently related to the torture program — and admitted as much when confronted by agency officials.

So, the CIA took it upon itself to perform an investigation no one asked for in order to clear itself of allegations that it had spied on Senate staffers. Chalk that one up to active disinterest by the administration in pursuing any allegations of wrongdoing associated with the Torture Report. Several months ago, the Senate claimed the CIA had hacked its computers and accessed Torture Report work-in-progress but the DOJ declined the invitation to investigate further.

Now, the CIA is claiming it was blameless (you know, other than the torture), based on its own internal investigation. The OIG report alleging CIA abuse of Senate computers was reviewed by the CIA's in-house Accountability Board and determined to be "riddled with errors."

The CIA's accusations against the Senate boil down to a bundle of classified internal CIA documents known as the "Panetta Review."

The Intelligence Committee made a formal request to the CIA for the Panetta Review in November 2013 — but unbeknownst to the CIA, the Senate already had a copy. According to the accountability board's report, the request set off alarm bells at the CIA, leading the agency to believe that the committee may have already accessed the Panetta Review. At that point, the Senate had already completed a draft of its torture report and was battling the CIA over the veracity of the findings and conclusions — that the CIA's program had been ineffective.

According to the CIA accountability board, the agency went back and reviewed the draft copy of the Senate report and the Panetta Review and found the language in both documents to be "remarkably similar," meaning that the Senate probably relied on the Panetta Review to draft its report.

If the CIA didn't want the Senate to access these documents, it's left unexplained as to how it failed to prevent this. The CIA supposedly had "walled off" space for the Senate to work within its network and actively monitored staffers' activity. In fact, it was this active monitoring that led to the Senate's accusations of CIA impropriety in the first place.

[CIA Director John] Brennan later revealed to Feinstein that he authorized the CIA employees to conduct a search of Intelligence Committee computers at the secure facility to determine how they obtained the Panetta Review. A CIA review of computer "audit logs" concluded that no one at the CIA had voluntarily turned over the Panetta Review.

That disclosure led Feinstein to make a dramatic speech on the Senate floor last March in which she accused the CIA of unlawfully monitoring Senate staffers' computers and attempting to sabotage the committee's investigation, which "undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function."

The agency determined that no one on its side had handed over the forbidden Panetta Review, so somehow the Senate had managed to thwart the CIA's secured system and access documents it wasn't supposed to see. Now, the CIA is pressing the DOJ to investigate the Senate. If this push is successful, the only people to be punished for years of unlawful torture will be Senate staffers. This won't do anything to salvage the CIA's reputation, but it may deter further investigations and oversight by the Congress and Senate. There's really only one reason the CIA wanted to keep the Panetta Review out of the Senate's hands, and it has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with self-preservation.

[T]he Intelligence Committee had found the findings of the Panetta Review — which had been conducted internally by the CIA — to be very different from what the CIA was telling the Intelligence Committee in response to the committee's torture report.

The fact that the CIA wants to punish the Senate for the Torture Report has provoked some heated responses from Senate Intelligence Committee members. Dianne Feinstein issued this short statement late Wednesday:

"Let me be clear: I continue to believe CIA's actions constituted a violation of the constitutional separation of powers and unfortunately led to the CIA's referral of unsubstantiated criminal charges to the Justice Department against committee staff," Feinstein said. "I'm disappointed that no one at the CIA will be held accountable. The decision was made to search committee computers, and someone should be found responsible for those actions."

Ron Wyden issued a longer statement in response, one that shows his irritation at the CIA being so willing to let itself off the hook:

"Both the CIA Inspector General and the review board appointed by Director Brennan have now concluded that the CIA's unauthorized search of Senate files was improper. It is incredible that no one at the CIA has been held accountable for this very clear violation of Constitutional principles. Director Brennan either needs to reprimand the individuals involved or take responsibility himself. So far he has done neither.

This episode further illustrates the cumulative corrosive effects of the CIA's torture program. First, agency officers and contractors went far beyond the limits set out even in the Justice Department's torture memos. Then, top officials spent a decade making inaccurate statements about torture's effectiveness to Congress, the White House and the American people. Next, instead of acknowledging these years of misrepresentations, the CIA's current leadership decided to double down on denial. And when CIA officials were worried that the Intelligence Committee had found a document that contradicted their claims, they secretly searched Senate computer files to find out if Senate investigators had obtained it.

At a time when the CIA appears incapable of policing itself, the intelligence community needs more external oversight, not less.

Last June senior officials from the NSA, FBI and ODNI all testified that their agencies did not have the authority to conduct a search of U.S. Senate files without external authorization, but Director Brennan has refused to say what rules apply to the CIA. This is unacceptable in a democracy. It is time for the Director's stonewalling to end."

Now, let's suppose that all of the CIA's allegations are true. If so, should the Senate be held accountable for actions it took that resulted in the exposure of CIA wrongdoing? Obviously, the CIA feels it should. But the documents "improperly accessed" were internal CIA documents that showed the agency was lying to its overseers about its interrogation techniques. Without this "improper" access, it's likely the Torture Report wouldn't have been as devastating. Large amounts of CIA wrongdoing would have remained undisclosed.

What's included in the Panetta Review is information the Senate Intelligence Committee should have had access to in the first place. But the CIA deliberately and wrongfully withheld information that contradicted the narrative it was feeding to its overseers. If the Senate is to be punished for its wrongful access, then it follows that the CIA should be held accountable for its deliberate misrepresentation of its torture programs. Instead, there's now a chance the investigators will pay for their (mild in comparison) misconduct while the agency walks away clean.

Filed Under: cia, dianne feinstein, john brennan, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, senate spying, spying, torture report

Surprise: CIA-Appointed Panel Finds No Real Problem With CIA Spying On Senate

from the show-trials dept

After the CIA's Inspector General basically revealed that not only did the CIA spy on the network of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were investigating the CIA, but that CIA boss John Brennan lied about it and that the breaches were much worse than originally detailed, Brennan appointed a panel to "investigate." Take a wild guess what the panel appointed by the guy who lied about the spying has concluded? If you said that it found serious problems and recommended real consequences for those involved and their leadership, you haven't been paying much attention.

Instead, if you said it would do some hand-wavy talk about "mistakes being made" but recommend no real consequences and downplay the severity of what happened, well, you get a gold star and a special tissue in which to weep about the loss of the separation of powers:

While effectively rejecting the most significant conclusions of the inspector general’s report, the panel, appointed by Mr. Brennan and composed of three C.I.A. officers and two members from outside the agency, is still expected to criticize agency missteps that contributed to the fight with Congress.

But its decision not to recommend anyone for disciplinary action is likely to anger members of the Intelligence Committee, who have accused the C.I.A. of trampling on the independence of Congress and interfering with its investigation of agency wrongdoing. The computer searches occurred late last year while the committee was finishing an excoriating report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program.

The message that we keep sending is, if you're powerful enough, there's almost nothing you can do with any actual consequences attached. Is it any wonder that the intelligence community keeps pushing the boundaries further and further?

Filed Under: cia, evan bayh, john brennan, senate intelligence committee, spying