Congress: We Didn't Know the FBI Was Creating a Small Surveillance 'Air Force' 106
Errorcod3 sends a followup to last week's news that the FBI is operating a fleet of planes across the U.S. for surveillance purposes. A new article in The Atlantic points out that Congress is claiming to have had little or no awareness the fleet was being built, and is asking for answers. Quoting:
Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, demanded to be briefed (PDF) no later than this week on "the scope, nature, and purpose of these operations and what legal authorities, if any, are being relied upon in carrying out these operations." Sixteen House members wrote to the FBI (PDF), pointing out that the president had just signed a reform ending the bulk collection of phone records. "It is highly disturbing," they wrote, "to learn that your agency may be doing just that and more with a secret fleet of aircraft engaged in surveillance missions." They asked for the FBI to identify the legal theory used to justify the flights, the circumstances surrounding them, the technologies on the aircraft, the privacy policy used for data collected, and the civil liberties safeguards that had been put in place. Senator Al Franken has posed ten questions of his own (PDF) to the FBI.
Al Franken has posed ten questions (Score:3, Funny)
Only one per post!
An honorable sense of tradition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An honorable sense of tradition... (Score:5, Insightful)
if you use the word 'spy' or 'surveillance' its generally allowed.
but call it agency-wide peeping toms and we'd all object.
same thing, though. loss of privacy and some dude looking into stuff that he has no right to. mostly for jollies, too (lets admit the elephant in the room; surveillance has the 'fun' aspect for you sick-o pervs out there that enjoy that kind of thing).
there is no 'making us safer'. its everything BUT that, to be accurate about it.
peeping toms. that's what we are enabling. we should do all we can to refer to the mass spying in this way. maybe then they'd be seen for what they really are. perverts with legal authority to BE pervs under color of law.
how sad that we have allowed this to go as far as it has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just checking to make sure nobody else is following you around everywhere.
Jollies? My ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
These agencies are not sifting through everyone's personal stuff for jollies. It's fear and intimidation, and used repeatedly as a way to silence opposition and critics. Cut their budget and see all of your personal affairs made public. Defend the person exposed, and your stuff is made public. Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?
Congress does not know where the FBI is spending tax money? What the fuck are they doing on the tax payer dime, because their goddamn job is to know these things. Fire them all and start getting people you trust on ballots, because the career politicians funded by a select few people in the country are not doing the job.
Re:Jollies? My ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is another way of saying, a very credible thing to expect. Whatever is "just good business." can be considered increasingly certain at higher scales.
Re:Jollies? My ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI was set up specifically so that Congress can plausibly deny the things it does. They gave it a charter with a broad scope, lots of funding, then stuck their heads in the sand so that they don't have to admit to what the FBI does on a regular basis. Now, Homeland Security can say anything/everything is a state secret and not even admit to Congress itself what it's been doing on a regular basis. It's appalling how many people have lied before congress about the things Snowden revealed only to backtrack later and admit they were indeed lies. I'm surprised no one went to jail for lying to congress.
As for the clowns in congress, most work for their corporate and union sponsors, not American citizens. They should have patches on their suits to identify their sponsors - like race car drivers. Good luck voting them out. Their parties gerrymandered their districts to make sure they get voted back in. They also wrote the campaign finance laws. Our "vote for one candidate = a vote against all other candidates" system is at the heart of why we're stuck with a 2 party system. Both parties are bought, so when you go to vote, you basically pick between Kang and Kodos.
http://memecrunch.com/meme/7AQ... [memecrunch.com]
We don't live in a democracy or even a democratic republic -- we're a Plutocracy. Corporations are people, money is both speech and power, and the rich generally control not only 99% of the wealth, but also 99% of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Has there ever been a country (or any political unit) that wasn't a plutocracy? Perhaps some are better than others, but I can't think of any government where the rich don't exercise a lot more control than the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?
This is what happened to Elliot Spitzer in my opinion. He was aggressively going after Wall Street crime when the revelations about his paid-for love life came about. I'm not saying he wasn't having sex with prostitutes. But come on, lots of powerful men have sex with prostitutes.
Re: (Score:1)
While I can't really argue with J. Edgar being the root of the dodginess of the FBI, it should be noted that the FBI was founded in 1908 - Hoover didn't take over until 1924...
Re:An honorable sense of tradition... (Score:4, Interesting)
So it seems the real problem with the FBI like so many other US government agencies, is how the Head of the Organisation is appointed and how much power they have.
It seems pretty much a screw up to allow one single head of the FBI with all that power. Likely much like another board appointed to oversea application of the law, 'a jury'. Rather than one person with all that enormous power, appointing 12 persons with proven experience and appropriate qualifications to manage and control the organisation according to law, makes a lot more sense.
Creating the requirement that 12 people must sit down to craft and apply policy means a solid record of discussion and validation must exist prior to any policy being applied and this enables government to review those policy decisions. Each of those 12 appointees would also hold other leadership roles within that government organisation. Consider how much better various organisation like the NSA, CIA, DOD, would run if all policy discussion and decisions were required to be public. There is absolutely no reason for one person to have total control of those organisations, it makes no sense at all and is extremely dangerous and has routinely been abused by that one person.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could make a similar argument about having one chief executive.
I mean, why couldn't we (US) elect the cabinet members? And why couldn't they have the authority to issue all executive actions? (We could still have a President, but his/her role could simply be to act as an arbitrator between cabinet members... more or less, having veto authority over executive actions taken by cabinet members, but without direct power to order any action.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is called a parliamentary style government where the head of the lower house is elected by the other elected members to be the leader of the government and can be readily voted out. The president then becomes more a figure head role, to basically ensure the other elected representatives stick to the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
appointing 12 persons with proven experience and appropriate qualifications to manage and control the organisation
Already been done: Majestic [wikipedia.org] (or has it?)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has little or no awareness... (Score:2)
Re:Congress has little or no awareness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress gave up their rights and obligations to corporate lawyers and ALEC a long time ago. Now the defense, surveillance, energy and banking industries pretty much write the laws and run the show. So one more out of control agency among so many seems pretty par for the course in "1984 as an instruction manual" America.
Re:Congress has little or no awareness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they can take back their power and responsibilities at any time.
Every single day that they don't should be considered a separate act of treason.
Re: (Score:3)
We are in agreement on that. And, treason is exactly what it is. We elect those asses to perform jobs and functions, and they fail to perform said jobs and functions. They are all to busy looking after their personal finances to worry about pissants who vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Treason has a certain specific legal definition, which this doesn't quite meet.
What it does meet is a failure to uphold their oathes of office, about defending the constitution.
Re:Congress has little or no awareness... (Score:4, Insightful)
For those with faulty sarcasm detection, this is an incredibly common notion that I do not share but helps explain why we're in this mess.
Re: (Score:3)
kinda/sorta goes with the territory.
Well yes,
But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.
You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Congress is supposed to know what is going on, although it is a little less direct than having an MP who has a portfolio. The Executive has a fair amount of independence, as long as it obeys the wording of the laws that Congress passes. Not necessarily the intent.
In theory, the FBI could respond with: This is allowed under such and such program which was budgeted under this line item or which the Justice Department has interpreted its mandate as meaning it has the authority to do such and such. If t
Re:Congress has little or no awareness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Awww, how cute. You still think that's true.
These particular dogs of war are slipping their leashes all over the world these days.
If you think your parliament knows everything your agencies are up to, you are sadly delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Awww, how cute. You still think that's true.
These particular dogs of war are slipping their leashes all over the world these days.
If you think your parliament knows everything your agencies are up to, you are sadly delusional.
When something this big is discovered in Australia, the politicians responsible are sacked. That tends to motivate them to do their jobs a little better. No politician wants to be on the receiving end of a royal commission... and I predict a few of those after the Abbott government (and to be fair the Abbott govt fired the first shot with the Royal Commission into union corruption which was nothing more than a witch hunt for their political enemies).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When something this big is discovered in Australia, the politicians responsible are sacked. That tends to motivate them to do their jobs a little better.
When something this big is discovered in America, a video of two large women fighting in a Walmart and inciting a six year old to join in the fray "goes viral" via the media. It's not like these videos or fights are that uncommon, but they go viral as if they're unique (and news).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.
You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.
It seems that politicians jobs now are to launch into ridiculous amounts of rhetoric, deceive the population in a way that makes us feel like idiots when we finally figure out whatever agenda was being rolled out and then high five each other when it passes.
I'm from a Westminster system country too, however it was never designed for a two party system and the original purpose of evolving a nations laws seems to have been subverted to shackling the population of the entire western world to debt and a new fo
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Good PR for congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like congress likes to act all indignant (certain congresscritters) and demand that executive branch agencies answer their questions and defend civil liberties, but in the end nothing ever is done. Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering. I am left to conclude that congress just puts on a good show for the masses while the media is focused, and then when things move on they go back to doing what they were doing before. Both parties.
Re:Good PR for congress (Score:5, Informative)
Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering.
It was Diane Feinstein. Pelosi is a partisan leftist, but Feinstein is a centrist: She fully supports ALL forms of authoritarianism. If the Bill of Rights was put up for a vote, Feinstein would object to them all.
As a Californian, I am ashamed to say, she is my senator.
Re: (Score:1)
As a Californian, I am ashamed to say, she is my senator.
She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.
Re: (Score:3)
She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.
Senators should represent the interests of the country as a whole, not engage in a prisoner's dilemma by grabbing what they can for their constituents. A good first step to achieve this would be to abolish the seniority system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
She must be bringing something home, because she has been there for a very long time.
She does; she says mean things about the "rich", coporations and the rest of the libtard boogey men. CA knuckleheads lap that shit up even as they're pounding on Zillow to find someplace they can afford to live after fucking up their own state.
Re: (Score:2)
:-) Uh huh... You're a funny guy...
Top five contributors:
PG&E Corp
University of California
Time Warner
Walt Disney Co
Edison International
Yeap, she's real mean to the rich and corporations all right... Millions of dollars worth of mean and nasty. She's so mean, she *makes medicine sick*!
Re: (Score:2)
You've missed the distinction between "says" and `does'. Reading comprehension issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I tend to tune out when confronted with all the tired old cliches there... You don't seem to understand. She wins for a reason. Everybody already knows the rhetoric is bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, well, it must be all about style with you if you think *various news channels* have any more credibility than Jon Stewart.
Re: (Score:2)
Pelosi is a partisan leftist, but Feinstein is a centrist: She fully supports ALL forms of authoritarianism.
Being a leftist doesn't prevent you from being an authoritarian.
BTW (Score:2)
Yeah, but WHY IS THAT STILL TRUE? Does Orange County and San Diego truly control the entire state? I guess so, given that if this state was even half as progressive as they like portray themselves, by now, no one would even remember her.
Legal Authority (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like congress likes to act all indignant (certain congresscritters) and demand that executive branch agencies answer their questions and defend civil liberties, but in the end nothing ever is done. Even Nancy Pelosi, after being temporarily upset that she was the target of some surveillance (if I recall correctly) fully supports the NSA and their illegal information gathering. I am left to conclude that congress just puts on a good show for the masses while the media is focused, and then when things move on they go back to doing what they were doing before. Both parties.
Not much will be done, certainly.
Legal authority is pretty obvious--at least it's obvious that it's not constitutionally restricted. No warrant required under existing precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Doesn't mean they had a funding grant authorized by Congress for it, though.
they dindu nuffin (Score:2)
You know what else sucks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing the same video bytes -- which I am not going to watch anyway -- EVERY TIME I scroll down the page.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, Dice seems truly surprised that the Slashdot crowd can tell bad user interfaces and web page designs from good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Is /. trying to drive us long time members away?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're trying to suck all the money they can from their members this quarter, even if it drives long time members away.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you could move [soylentnews.org] to a site similar to Slashdot but that isn't trying to slowly implement Beta.
Re: (Score:1)
The rest of the quote: (Score:3)
The beginning was:
"We Didn't Know the FBI Was Creating a Small Surveillance 'Air Force'"
But it continued:
"Those jerks told us it was going to be a big impressive air force! Not a bunch of Cessna's that were rejected from crop dusting!"
Stop bragging about your incompetence, Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsurprised (Score:2)
What precisely did we expect when the dumb fuckers don't even read the bills before they vote?
Of course it could simply be a lie, like the collusive anti constitutional deniability that congress and the white house have shared since Korea?
All I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
God bless Edward Snowden. I hope there are hundreds more just like him.
FBI has an air force, Air Force has an FBI (Score:2)
http://www.24af.af.mil/ [af.mil]
Time to clean the Augean Stables.
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, the DOD has no power within our borders. They can not arrest any civilian. They can not create trumped up charges.
THIS is scary (Score:3)
However, the FBI is a major part of the DOJ and all Americans should be TERRIFIED of this.
And if anybody believes that CONgress had no knowledge, well, they are just plain fools. Even when I was working on the USA PATRIOT act back in 2005-6, we KNEW that CONgress knew everything that we were up to. Yeah, the GOP claims that they had no knowledge, but the NSA informed them constantly on it.
And now, CONgress claims to not know that FBI was spending 10-100s of millions on aircraft and CONgress was not informed????? Yeah. Right.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody will listen to you if that capitalization persists. Yeah it gets the point across, but so does screaming profanities. Both will get you ignored.
Ah but will you shut it down? (Score:3)
Saying you didn't know means little when your response when you do know is to do nothing.
history (Score:2)
The FBI might be creating a LARGE Air Force... (Score:2)
... for all Congress knows. There are two meanings to the word "oversight" and Congress seems to have picked the wrong one...
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
The FBI isn't doing anything outside of current regulatory structures. If its legal for the police to fly around with FLIR systems on helicopters and park cars with Stingray cell equipment outside the local gang hangout, what is the FBI doing that is different?
It's up to Congress to keep them accountable for performance. If they think air surveillance is an efficient way of doing business, they should be able to justify that expenditure.