Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Government Privacy United States

Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers 242

An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly accused the CIA of inappropriately searching computers used by her committee, violating presidential directives, federal laws and the Fourth Amendment. The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location for use by the members of the intelligence committee. When the committee staff received internal documents the CIA had not officially provided, the agency examined the computers used by the committee and removed the unauthorized documents. The action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution." There were rumors of such a few weeks ago, and now it's official. Read the transcript of her speech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers

Comments Filter:
  • It's a she, not a he (Score:5, Informative)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:03PM (#46455103) Journal

    That asshole's name is Dianne Feinstein, a staunchly pro-NSA, pro-BIG BROTHER senator.

  • by memojuez ( 910304 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:16PM (#46455215)
    You forget, Congress is full of elitists who didn't follow many of the Employment Laws and regulations (Equal Opportunity Employment, Affirmative Action, OSHA, etc) until it required itself in 1994. So, it only stands to reason that one of their ilk, regardless of Party affiliation, would evoke her 4th Amendment rights while gleefully trampling on ours.
  • CIA computers (Score:5, Informative)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:17PM (#46455225)

    As I read it, the CIA searched their own computers that were made available to the Senate Committee, looking for documents that were not supposed to be made available or publicly released. For whatever reason (probably a CIA screw-up) someone on the committee found those documents and blabbed about them.

    Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers. It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint, but given the amount of hysteria around leaks these days it doesn't surprise me that the CIA thought they had a bigger problem than just one of their own inadvertently releasing documents that should not have been.

  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:19PM (#46455255)

    The hypocritical Senator's own word, for our enjoyment. Pass the popcorn.

    The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America []
    By Dianne Feinstein
    Oct. 13, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

    Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency's call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer: The program—which collects phone numbers and the duration and times of calls, but not the content of any conversations, names or locations—is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program []
    By Dianne Feinstein
    Oct. 20, 2013 6:22 p.m. EDT

    The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.

    The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

  • by lagomorpha2 ( 1376475 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @01:00PM (#46455625)

    As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

    I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

    Personally I blame California.

  • Diebold... (Score:4, Informative)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @01:08PM (#46455711) Homepage

    Any other questions?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @01:33PM (#46455947)

    From what I read you're misreading it. The CIA agreed to put a bunch of its own stuff on its own computers for the Senate to look at, under the written agreement that they would let the Senate do its investigation without interference. Apparently, at one point they (the CIA and apparently 3rd party public contractors) started removing documents from the secure computers in violation of that agreement. That was what you were referring to, and that alone would be the CIA searching and hiding stuff from the Senate in violation of a written agreement (and several laws, mentioned at the end of the speech).

    However, the issue went further after that first incident was "resolved". At one point, the CIA included a report it had made about the same topics that the Senate was investigating on those computers. Those papers were printed, removed from the CIA room and taken in a secure fashion to the committee offices, per exactly what they were allowed to do. The CIA then, allegedly, and if I read it right (I only read it once), decided to break into the committee computers and removed the documents. Again, there are a list of laws and constitutional provisions that this would have potentially violated mentioend at the end of the speech.

    Again, I read this quickly and only once, so if I got a detail wrong someone else might correct me. Also, I should mention that given James Clapper's blatant lying to congress re: NSA spying, it doesn't seem like any consequences come with giving the legislature a big fuck off.

  • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @01:33PM (#46455949)

    They don't even bother hiding it anymore. She routes millions to her husband and nobody cares.

  • by delcielo ( 217760 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @01:49PM (#46456069) Journal
    Regardless of the hypocrisy of Feinstein, this turn of events needed to be made public.

    The CIA did something wrong. The Senate opened an investigation. The CIA accidentally sent them incriminating information, then deleted some after it had already been reviewed. The CIA agreed not to delete any more, then did it again. The Senate put some of this incriminating information into their official report and moved evidence to a secure location. The CIA didn't much care for that and started an investigation into how they got it, trumped up accusations of criminal conduct and have refused to accept the legitimate oversight role of the Senate. Hate Feinstein all you want, but don't dismiss this illegitimate action by the CIA because she's no angel herself.

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."