Dianne Feinstein: NSA Would Never Abuse Its Powers Because It's 'Professional'

from the your-logical-fallacy-is...66t4r dept

Senator Dianne Feinstein, as we've noted, seems to have this weird blindness to even the very idea that the NSA might abuse its powers, despite a long history of it doing exactly that. The history of the US intelligence community is littered like a junk yard with examples of massive abuses of power by intelligence folks. And yet, Feinstein seems shocked at the idea that anyone questions the NSA's ability to abuse the system. Why? Because the NSA is "professional." Appearing on Meet the Press this weekend, Feinstein just kept repeating how "professional" the NSA is as if that was some sort of talisman that wards off any potential of abuse. First, host David Gregory pointed to reporter Bart Gellman's claim that President Obama's NSA reforms will allow for the expansion of the NSA's collecting personal data on "billions of people around the world, Americans and foreign citizens alike" and told Feinstein that didn't seem like it was protecting people's privacy. And Feinstein went straight to her "but they're professionals!" argument:

Well, I would disagree with Mr. Gellman. I think that what the president has said is that he wanted to maintain the capability of the program. That, as Chairman Rogers said, it has not been abused or misused. And it is carried out by very strictly vetted and professional people.

Of course it has been "abused" and "misused," but let's not let details get in the way.

Later in the interview, Gregory asks Feinstein to comment on Rep. Mike Roger's totally unsubstantiated (and contradicted by nearly everyone else in the know) claims that Ed Snowden was working for Russian intelligence, and Feinstein bizarrely returns to talking about just how "professional" NSA staffers are.

DAVID GREGORY:
And do you agree with Chairman Rogers that he may have had help from the Russians?

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN:
He may well have. We don't know at this stage. But I think to glorify this act is really to set sort of a new level of dishonor. And this goes to where this metadata goes. Because the N.S.A. are professionals. They are limited in number to 22 who have access to the data. Two of them are supervisors. They are vetted. They are carefully supervised. The data goes anywhere else. How do you provide that level of supervision?

Of course, Ed Snowden was also "vetted" and "professional." And Feinstein seems to think he may have been working for the Russians, which seems to suggest that any of the other "vetted" and "professional" NSA employees might be abusing their position as well. And, I mean, I'm sure the NSA analysts who listened in on phone sex calls between Americans and then shared them around the office were also "vetted" and "professional."

In fact, I'd think pretty much the entirety of human history concerning intelligence efforts suggests that abuse is almost always carried out by people who are "vetted" and "professional." And that's exactly what has most people so concerned about these programs and what the NSA is doing. No matter how well-meaning, well-trained or well-vetted people are, the temptation and ability for abuse is way too strong. Just last week, we were quoting a bunch of "vetted" and "professional" NSA folks talking about how they fantasized about murdering Ed Snowden. Those comments don't sound particularly professional at all. They sound like people who shouldn't be allowed within miles of people's private data. But Feinstein apparently sees no problems with those kinds of people having the ability to search through your private data. Because they're "professional."

Filed Under: abuse, david gregory, dianne feinstein, nsa, professionalism

Rep. Mike Rogers Keeps Insisting Snowden Is A Russian Spy, Even As NSA/FBI Officials Say No Such Evidence

from the do-you-trust-mike-rogers? dept

Rep. Mike Rogers sure loves the NSA and really, really hates Ed Snowden. It's at the point where Rogers appears to not care at all about the truth, repeating multiple blatant falsehoods in TV interviews when it comes to Snowden. This past weekend, he went on TV to repeat an old favorite, claiming (without any proof, but just blind speculation) that he thinks that Snowden was a Russian spy all along. On Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Rogers about Snowden's comments in his interview with Bart Gellman, in which Snowden pointed to Rogers' (and Senator Dianne Feinstein's) failure to uphold their role as overseers of the NSA as for why he had to leak the documents he gave to reporters. Rogers disagrees and hints that Snowden "had some help."

Well, first of all, I mean, I couldn't disagree more. That's like having the janitor at a bank who figured out how to steal some money deciding matters of high finance. This was a thief, who we believe had some help, who stole information the vast majority had nothing to do with privacy. Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines have been incredibly harmed by the data that he has taken with him and we believe now is in the hands of nation states.

Note the insult: comparing Snowden to "the janitor." This is nothing more than Rogers being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. People who worked with Snowden have pointed out repeatedly that he was incredibly smart, with one NSA colleague describing him as "a genius among geniuses."

DAVID GREGORY:
Who helped him?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, there were certain questions that we have to get answered. Where some of this aid, first of all, if it was a privacy concern he had, he didn't look for information on the privacy side for Americans. He was stealing information that had to do with how we operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe. That begs the question. And some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go, he had a go bag, if you will.

That's actually not what anyone was saying. As we pointed out, late last year, the NSA's director of technology, Lonny Anderson, has admitted that basically anyone who had top secret security clearance could have seen all of the documents Snowden saw and that because of Snowden's job as a sys admin in charge of moving certain documents around, what Snowden did was part of his normal job. Others in the NSA have said the same thing. So it appears that Rogers is, once again, simply making stuff up.

As for the travel issues, it doesn't seem that confusing at all. He flew to Hong Kong, which he'd evidently planned for a while. He didn't need "a go bag" to be all ready to go. And, then, once the news reports first came out, of course he knew he had to be ready to travel.

DAVID GREGORY:
But how high level, do you think?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, let me just say this. I believe there's a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don't think that's a coincidence, number one. Number two, and let me just talk about this. I think it's important.

DAVID GREGORY:
You think the Russians helped Ed Snowden?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
I believe there's questions to be answered there. I don't think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling of the FSB.

DAVID GREGORY:
That's a significant development if it's true.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, I said we have questions we have to answer. But as somebody who used to do investigations, some of the things we're finding we would call clues that certainly would indicate to me that he had some help and he stole things that had nothing to do with privacy.

Yes, there's a reason he ended up in Russia... because on his attempt to go to Latin America, the US pulled his passport, leaving him stranded in a Moscow airport for a few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, if the US hadn't reacted in such a kneejerk manner, he could have actually made it to his destination.

Meanwhile, both the NSA's guy in charge of reviewing the Snowden situation, Rick Ledgett, as well as the FBI team investigating Snowden have both said that there is absolutely no indication that Snowden was working with anyone else. The NSA specifically has said:

The NSA's internal review has determined about 98 percent of the scope of the material that Snowden had accessed, and officials have found no evidence that he had help either within the NSA or from adversary spy agencies.

As for the FBI:

According to senior government officials, F.B.I. agents from the bureau’s Washington field office, who are leading the investigation, believe that Mr. Snowden methodically downloaded the files over several months while working as a government contractor at the Hawaii facility. They also believe that he worked alone, the officials said.

Yet, magically, Rep. Mike Rogers somehow knows that he was just a Russian spy all along? Yeah, right. Considering Rogers' history as willing to flat out lie to defend the NSA and smear Ed Snowden, it's difficult to take him seriously. If David Gregory were paying attention, he would have pointed all of that out, but Gregory seems more intent on just continuing to keep up his cozy relationship with the NSA's strongest defenders.

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, mike rogers, nsa, russia, surveillance

Media Hypocrisy: When DC Insiders Leak Gov't Talking Points About NSA, No One Has A Cow

from the how-about-that... dept

If you haven't seen it yet, Glenn Greenwald gave a fantastic speech last week about all of the NSA surveillance leaks. The whole speech is about an hour long, but I wanted to highlight one key point, in which Greenwald discusses how the leaks haven't just outed the NSA surveillance, but the subservience of the DC press to the government they cover. The embed below should start right at the moment he discusses this, but if not, it's at 42:20: Part of what he discusses (around 45:45) is about the conversation where David Gregory asked Greenwald why he shouldn't be arrested for "aiding and abetting" the leaks of confidential surveillance info. The ridiculousness wasn't just in the question, but that in that very same conversation, when Greenwald had brought up the secret FISA court order that supposedly called out the NSA for failing to abide by the 4th Amendment. Gregory insisted that his "government sources" had told him what was in that secret ruling, and he proceeded to lay out what he believed was in that ruling (which Greenwald insists was factually inaccurate). However, as he notes, here was David Gregory, effectively "leaking" a classified FISA Court ruling (wrongly) based on a "leak" from an administration official. And yet, no one seemed concerned about that -- just about whether or not Greenwald should go to jail.

"But what was really amazing was that 90 seconds later, he was calling for my prosecution, for having disclosed classified information, and yet, he, 90 seconds earlier, had just gotten done saying that somebody in the government had come to him and described this top secret court document, which he then disclosed to the public and to the world, by telling me what he thought it said."

He then describes how Barbara Starr, a CNN reporter who covers the Pentagon -- though, Greenwald jokingly calls her the "Pentagon spokesperson who works for CNN as the 'Pentagon reporter'" -- did the exact same thing, disclosing that US officials are claiming that terrorists are "changing tactics" following the Snowden leaks, based on claims from "anonymous" government sources. These anonymous government sources sure are busy. I had been collecting a few such examples, but Michael Calderone at HuffPo beat me to it by highlighting a whole bunch of similar stories:

Anonymous officials this week have told several news organizations -– often using nearly identical language -- that the NSA leaks had prompted members of terrorist groups to change the way they communicate.

A “senior intelligence official” to ABC News on Monday:

“The intelligence community is already seeing indications that several terrorist groups are in fact attempting to change their communication behaviors based on what they’re reading about our surveillance programs in the media.”

A "senior intelligence official" to the Washington Post on Monday:

Already, several terrorist groups in various regions of the world have begun to change their method of communication based on disclosures of surveillance programs in the media, the official said. He would not elaborate on the communication modes.

A "US intelligence official” to CNN on Tuesday:

“We can confirm we are seeing indications that several terrorist groups are in fact attempting to change their communications behaviors based specifically on what they are reading about our surveillance programs in the media.”

Two “US national security sources” to Reuters on Tuesday:

Intelligence agencies have detected that members of targeted militant organizations, including both Sunni and Shi'ite Islamist groups, have begun altering communications patterns in what was believed to be a direct response to details on eavesdropping leaked by the former U.S. spy agency contractor, two U.S. national security sources said.

Two “U.S. intelligence officials” to the AP on Wednesday:

Two U.S. intelligence officials say members of virtually every terrorist group, including core al-Qaida members, are attempting to change how they communicate, based on what they are reading in the media, to hide from U.S. surveillance.

Of course, the details are incredibly sparse to non-existent. And, frankly, that's understandable since it seems like it's almost surely bullshit. The report from Starr claimed the following:

The administration official offered an example of one concern: Terrorists may be less inclined to communicate via "clean" e-mail accounts that have no links to them because they believe the U.S. government can track those.

But... does anyone seriously believe that terrorists are so dumb that they're communicating via basic email accounts like that? We're talking about Al Qaeda, who was so careful with Osama bin Laden's communications that he typed out his emails on a thumb drive, which someone else then took far away to input into a computer. Terrorists know the US government is spying on them, and so far none of the revelations has been all that surprising or revealing about how the government spies on terrorists. The concern has been about how the public is swept up in the process.

But, really, all of those stories above seem a hell of a lot more revealing about US intelligence techniques than anything that Ed Snowden has leaked. MSNBC's Chris Hayes is spot on in this scathing response to Starr and others, and the "media insiders" as he notes that the reports of government officials telling the world that terrorists are changing how they communicate seems a lot more revealing, but no one seems to be calling for any of the reporters above to go to jail: As Hayes says:

This article not only self-servingly advances the narrative that the intelligence community would like us to believe -- that the Edward Snowden leaks have helped the terrorists -- but, in doing so, it could be seen as doing far more in alerting terror groups to what the US intelligence community knows about them and their communications than anything published by the Guardian or the Washington Post. And yet, somehow, I have not heard members of Congress calling Barbara Starr's reporting dangerous, or pushing for her prosecution...

The whole video is great. But, between all of these things, you see the same thing over and over again. The actual leaks from Ed Snowden don't appear to be damaging, other than to the reputations of some in DC. And the later leaks being used to tar and feather Snowden appear to be much more revealing. But, somehow the insider press is fine with "leaks" that support the government's official position, but aren't okay when the leaks actually challenge the government.

Funny how that works. Or, rather, not funny at all.

Filed Under: barbara starr, chris hayes, david gregory, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, hypocrisy, journalism, leaks, media

Journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin Suggests US Should Arrest Glenn Greenwald For Doing Journalism

from the sickening dept

Some have argued that Meet the Press' David Gregory was just playing "devil's advocate" in asking reporter Glenn Greenwald if he should be arrested for "aiding and abetting" Ed Snowden for doing journalism. I'm not sure I agree with that, but now the NY Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin, normally a business reporter, has gone even further in saying flat out that given Snowden left Hong Kong, he'd "arrest Snowden and now I'd almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who seems to be out there, he wants to help him get to Ecuador or whatever." Of course, there is no evidence that Greenwald is helping Snowden get anywhere. In the meantime, a journalist suggesting another journalist be arrested because his relationship with a source is too close is incredible, and ridiculous. This is doubly true for Sorkin, a journalist who has been, at times, accused of cozying up to Wall Street bankers to tell "their side" of the story of the economic troubles of the past few years.

After a bunch of people called Sorkin out for this he tried to argue that he was not calling for Greenwald to be arrested despite his clear statements in which he appeared to call for exactly that. Sorkin then claimed that he was just "raising other questions." In response, Greenwald shot back: "Did you conspire with all of your extremely close WSJ-executive sources to commit fraud? Did you know about it? #JustAsking." And, really, that's the perfect retort. Anyone confusing a reporter reporting on some information with "conspiring" with the source is making a fool of himself.

Later, Greenwald opined on why he thinks various "establishment" journalists seem to be suggesting that he should be arrested for doing the journalism they failed to do:

Some of what is driving this hostility from some media figures is personal bitterness. Some of it is resentment over my having been able to break these big stories not despite, but because of, my deliberate breaching of the conventions that rule their world.

But most of it is what I have long criticized them for most: they are far more servants to political power than adversarial watchdogs over it, and what provokes their rage most is not corruption on the part of those in power (they don't care about that) but rather those who expose that corruption, especially when the ones bringing transparency are outside of, even hostile to, their incestuous media circles.

They're just courtiers doing what courtiers have always done: defending the royal court and attacking anyone who challenges or dissents from it. That's how they maintain their status and access within it. That's what courtiers to power, by definition, do.

It's a harsh assessment -- perhaps too harsh -- but it does offer a pretty good explanation for the way reporters are taking seriously (and, in some cases, appearing to advocate) for this ridiculous notion that by reporting on Snowden's leaks, Greenwald is somehow a co-conspirator.

Update: This morning Sorkin issued an apology to Greenwald, saying that he believes in freedom of the press and thinks this is an important story, and he didn't mean to imply that Greenwald should be arrested. Rather, he claims, it was a poorly executed attempt to raise some basic questions about the role of the media in all of this.

Filed Under: andrew ross sorkin, arrests, david gregory, edward snowden, free speech, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, journalism

Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

from the no-place-for-logic dept

Over the past few years, we've found that Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, has an incredible knack for spewing pure bullshit in defense of whatever he's supporting, rarely even bothering to make sure his statements are internally consistent. Still, his statements on Meet the Press this weekend take that nonsense to a new high. Rogers goes off on Snowden -- who he has already declared "is a traitor" -- arguing in favor of the "theft of government property" charges against Snowden by making the following statement:

"He has taken information that does not belong to him -- it belongs to the people of the United States."

Right. This information that "belongs to the people of the United States," which has been totally hidden from us, was actually finally given to the people of the United States -- to whom Rogers admits it belongs -- by Snowden. And, for that, he's a traitor? How, exactly, does that work? By Rogers' own argument, the information, before Snowden leaked it, was improperly withheld, thanks to people like Rep. Mike Rogers, from the people who own it. Thus, by Rogers' own logic, isn't it actually Mike Rogers who is the traitor in that he withheld crucial information that "belongs to the people of the United States"?

Of course, Rogers didn't stop there. No, no. He continued with his internally inconsistent, and blatantly ridiculous argument by saying that (1) terrorists now know what we're up to and are changing what they do, and (2) so little information has been revealed that everyone thinks they know what's happening, but don't. That makes no sense. If (1) is true, it suggests that the actual details of the program have been revealed and thus wrongdoers now know our methods. But, immediately, he changes course and says that no one really knows what's going on -- in which case he shouldn't be concerned about terrorists changing what they do, because it shouldn't stop the successful programs that no one knows about.

We have seen that bad guys overseas -- terrorists who are committing and plotting attacks on the United States and our allies -- have changed the way they operate. We've already seen that. To say that's not harmful to the national security of the United States, or our safety, is just dead wrong...

[....] This is the problem with having a thousand-piece puzzle, taking three or four pieces, and deciding that you're now an expert on what that picture looks like. You're gonna get it wrong. They're getting it wrong and it's dangerous.

So, let me get this straight. The revealed information means that reporters only see a few pieces of the puzzle so they're getting the story "dead wrong." But... the terrorists, who are reading these stories, are somehow, magically, getting the full picture (the one the reporters are getting dead wrong) and miraculously changing how they act to now avoid NSA surveillance dragnets? How's that work? Answer: it doesn't. Rogers is spewing bullshit.

We don't ask for much from our elected officials, but is it really too much to ask that they make statements that are internally consistent within the brief block of time they open their mouths to yap about some subject on which they're supposedly "in charge"?

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, espionage, mike rogers, theft of government property, traitor

David Gregory Suggests Glenn Greenwald May Be A Criminal For Doing Journalism

from the shameful dept

It really was just a few months ago that we were pointing out how ridiculous it was that some were calling for the arrest of Meet the Press' David Gregory for doing journalism. DC's attorney general chose not to go after Gregory, and you might think this would make David Gregory a bit more sensitive to the idea that doing journalism around reporting on the law and legal issues is different than doing a crime. But, on this week's Meet the Press, Gregory had on Glenn Greenwald, and towards the end of their initial Q&A (around the 9:30 mark), Gregory pretty directly suggests that Greenwald should be charged as well for "aiding and abetting" Ed Snowden. The specific question (though, watching the video gives you much more of a sense of the tone and style in which it was asked) was:

"To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?"

After Greenwald hits back hard and points out the ridiculousness of a reporter "embracing" a theory that would outlaw nearly all investigative reporting on the government, Gregory insists he wasn't "endorsing" the idea, but merely raising the questions that others had. However, watching his initial question, it sure looks like he's directly suggesting that Greenwald committed a crime in reporting on such a huge story, making a huge leap in claiming that reporting on some leaked information is akin to "aiding and abetting."

Later in the show, Gregory's NBC colleague Chuck Todd made even stupider comments, suggesting -- based on nothing -- that Greenwald was more "involved" with Snowden than just as a reporter because Greenwald used to be a lawyer.

Of course, as Trevor Timm points out, during the interview, David Gregory himself repeated information that government officials leaked to him concerning a secret FISA court ruling (information that appears to be incorrect, based on the details that Snowden showed Greenwald, by the way). Given that, if Gregory believes that leaking classified information is a criminal act, then shouldn't Gregory be asking himself if he should be prosecuted?

Filed Under: aiding and abetting, crimes, david gregory, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, journalism, nsa, nsa leaks, nsa surveillance

MTP's David Gregory Does Journalism, Some Citizens Want His Arrest

from the welcome-to-the-stupid-show dept

The ripple effects from the Sandy Hook tragedy continue to present themselves. When something so horrific occurs, it's not difficult to understand over-the-top reactions, but that doesn't mean those reactions shouldn't be kept in check. We had folks rushing to blame videogames for what happened, despite all evidence to the contrary. We even saw how social media and media-media combined to rush to judgement on the wrong suspect and the wrong related Facebook "likes". Now, one new ripple is that David Gregory is under investigation.

The moderator of Meet The Press found himself the subject of a D.C. Metro PD inquiry over his prop use of high-capacity rifle magazines during an interview with an NRA representative. The inquiry being one thing, there's also a completely misguided White House petition floating around asking for the immediate arrest of Gregory.

David Gregory is not above the law; he is a journalist, and must be held accountable to the same law as every other person.

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines - D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

We The People demand that he be formally charged for violation of this law on "Meet The Press."

I admit, it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with MTP's use of the magazines as props. It turns out that the show's producers might make the dean's list for dumb this year. They did indeed get permission to use the props on the show, but they only got permission from the ATF, not local law enforcement, where those magazines are illegal. Stupid, but that kind of thing happens in show business, I suppose.

Now, dealing with the petition itself. It's just pickles that someone from Boise, Idaho is so whole-heartedly concerned with Metro D.C. gun laws that they need to start a petition to get the White House involved. Either that, or people are having more of those over-the-top reactions to a tragedy I mentioned earlier. Not to mention, as the linked article notes, attempting to get the Obama administration involved in any of this is simply futile.

The drive to lock Gregory up still needs about 15,000 signers, but in the mean time, let's clear this up. Although the White House could certainly apply political pressure to the D.C. government, it has no direct purview over the Metropolitan Police Department's investigations. To boot, Gregory held up the magazine as an example of the kind of ammunition used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn., and in the wake of that carnage, President Obama has moved toward making gun control a key issue in his second term. So, yeah, demanding that the White House clap David Gregory in irons is kind of dumb. Let's instead focus on the real villains, like CNN blabber Piers Morgan. A petition calling for his deportation back to the United Kingdom has garnered more than 82,000 signatures.

Now there's a petition I can get behind.

Filed Under: david gregory, free speech, guns, journalism
Companies: nra