Justin Amash: Mike Rogers Isn't Overseeing The Intelligence Community, He's Conspiring To Cover Up Its Activities

from the does-the-nsa-have-a-talking-bear? dept

Rep. Justin Amash has been highlighting for months how Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee seems to have gone out of his way to withhold information from Congress. In a recent speech, he teed off on Rogers, noting that while his job as head of the Intelligence Committee is supposed to be "oversight," it's actually been one of collusion with the White House to "cover up" the intelligence community's activities. Amash also responded to completely misleading (and, frankly, insulting) statements from Rogers' office implying that Rogers did make the necessary information "available" by inviting them to "classified briefings." However, Amash explained how those sessions were ridiculous because they weren't explanations about what was going on, but a sick game of 20 questions where Reps who were interested had to poke around in the dark:

But Amash said that intelligence officials are often evasive during classified briefings and reveal little new information unless directly pressed.

"You don't have any idea what kind of things are going on," Amash said. "So you have to start just spitting off random questions. Does the government have a moon base? Does the government have a talking bear? Does the government have a cyborg army? If you don't know what kind of things the government might have, you just have to guess and it becomes a totally ridiculous game of twenty questions."

Of course, now I want to know about the NSA's talking bear. And the moon base.

Filed Under: briefings, intelligence committee, justin amash, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance

US Gov't Briefing For All Employees: All Music Downloads Are Stolen, Risky

from the accuracy-not-so-important dept

A bunch of folks have sent over a post on Slashdot detailing how a mandatory US gov't briefing on "information security" uses incredibly hyperbolic and inaccurate information, including the idea that all music downloads are theft and insecure. You can see the (flash-heavy) video briefing. The actual part with the music downloads is pretty far into the presentation (you can jump forward through the chapters), when it hits an interactive bit where you get to go through "real-life scenarios" of "threats." In the bottom left corner, there's a scenario involving a colleague who says he's found a "cool site" from which you can "download music" and asks you how do you respond: The choices?

1. I'd rather download the music from home -- email me the link
2. Is it safe to download?
3. Since we're on our lunch hour, I see no harm. Here's my thumb drive!
4. That's stealing.

Choices one and three seem obviously wrong, but choice two actually does seem like the most relevant. After all, the "cool site" in question could be any number of "cool sites" that offer up legal free music, like Jamendo or CCMixter. But what happens if you select the second choice and ask if it's safe to download? You're told no, that's wrong: And then are scolded, saying that it's illegal and prohibited, followed up by another lecture about how not only is it illegal and prohibited, but unethical and "may result in criminal" liability. Someone should tell the folks at that cool Jamendo site.

Now, to be fair, it's rather obvious that the briefing is designed to keep gov't employees from using file sharing programs and potentially exposing confidential gov't documents via file sharing. And that's reasonable. But why not be accurate and honest about it? Lying about it makes no sense.

Filed Under: briefings, downloading, federal government, file sharing, music, security