Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the ye-shall-reap-as-ye-have-sown dept.

Government 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Are you sure it's not the NSA ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455063)

Senator accuses CIA of hacking into Intelligence Committee Computer --- methinks that Senator knew the real culprit is NSA and not CIA, but he hasn't got the gut to say so.

It's a she, not a he (5, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46455103)

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

Re:It's a she, not a he (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455129)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say it's time to double-down. If she's so against it, she clearly has something to hide.

Re:It's a she, not a he (5, Informative)

memojuez (910304) | about 8 months ago | (#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.

Re:It's a she, not a he (3)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46455223)

If she's attacking the CIA, she's probably a terrorist. Better cuff her and get her on a plane to Gitmo. Better safe than sorry when it comes to national security.

I won't hold my breath (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46455231)

I say it's time to double-down

You gotta understand that assholes like Dianne Feinstein doesn't think like us.

She thinks she's in the 0.1% elite, and for that, she ought to have the immunity from the same BIG BROTHER that she has thrown her support for.

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.

Re:I won't hold my breath (5, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 8 months ago | (#46455467)

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.

Re:I won't hold my breath (4, Informative)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 8 months ago | (#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.

Re:I won't hold my breath (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 8 months ago | (#46455689)

if only the people could vote to change... the name.

Diebold... (3, Informative)

PortHaven (242123) | about 8 months ago | (#46455711)

Any other questions?

Re:It's a she, not a he (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46455245)

No shit! Congress happily gave Federal agencies powers to spy on virtually every human being on the planet, so they can fucking well live on the same sphere we do.

Don't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, Feinstein? Well, a big "fuck you" from the rest of the world.

Re:It's a she, not a he (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46455297)

If only that achieved anything.(not sarcasm)

Re:It's a she, not a he (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#46455547)

We are all equal but some of us are little more equal.

Re:It's a she, not a he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455293)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander,

You mean, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Re:It's a she, not a he (2)

brainboyz (114458) | about 8 months ago | (#46455405)

I think he got it right. She wants freedom from CIA snooping. I think that's good for all of us.

Re:It's a she, not a he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455573)

I saw her on Meet The Press a few weeks ago. I could not believe that a California Democrat was such a defender of the NSA and domestic spying that they're accused of carrying out. I completely agree with your sentiment.

DAVID GREGORY:

Senator Feinstein, Chairman Rogers, welcome back. Good to have you both. So, the future of spying, it seems to me, is very much like the present. Chairman Rogers, do you view this as a big victory?

"That, as Chairman Rogers said, it has not been abused or misused. And it is carried out by very strictly vetted and professional people."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54117257/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/january-dianne-feinstein-mike-rogers-alexis-ohanian-john-wisniewski-rudy-giuliani-robert-gates-newt-gingrich-andrea-mitchell-harold-ford-jr-nia-malika-henderson/

Re:It's a she, not a he (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 8 months ago | (#46455191)

And so the NRA's smear campaign continues to influence idiots like you.
Good to know.

Re:It's a she, not a he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455217)

She has come out in support of the NSA many times; this isn't exactly secret. Do you deny this? The NRA is irrelevant.

Re:It's a she, not a he (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455261)

No, she really is fucking nuts and a huge hypocrite. As if the gun control and now governmental spying hypocrisy weren't enough to clue you into that, consider her stance on drones. She was all for more drones... until Code Pink was flying (read: constantly crashing) a cheap $25 remote control helicopter near her house in protest. So, Feinstein made up this whole dramatic story about how there was these huge drones spying on her and peeking in her windows and it scared her so much that she totally went the other way and started demanding new laws to make drones illegal.

She's crazy. She's a liar. She's a hypocrite. How about you put your own bias behind you and actually examine what's being said?

Sure, I'm the idiot (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46455271)

And so the NRA's smear campaign continues to influence idiots like you

I am a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

I am an American who treasure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and am willing to do anything and everything to protect my country from traitors such as that asshole Feinstein.

If doing so makes me an "idiot", so be it, and I hope that America has more "idiots" like me than "geniuses" such as your kind.

Re:It's a she, not a he (5, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | about 8 months ago | (#46455335)

Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.

As a card carrying member of the NRA (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 8 months ago | (#46455735)

Please know that we 3 Senator Feinstein. There is no need to smear her. She smears her stupidity all across her face.

This is communist accusations (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455077)

There is no snooping on those computers. Real patriots know that.

Re:This is communist accusations (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46455239)

I hope I never live in a world where you can't even trust the CIA to be honest with you.

Let's Be Clear... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455489)

It is the Obama Administration that is doing the spying on Congress.

NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455079)

This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46455121)

I have sympathy for her

I have absolutely no sympathy for that piece of shit.

She's a typical example of what is wrong with the government of the United States of America.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 8 months ago | (#46455199)

And you are an example of how load mouths have no clue what they are talking about.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46455395)

A bit more elaboration would be infinitely more intriguing than the trolling exhibited there. Wanna give it a shot? :-)

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (1)

motorhead (82353) | about 8 months ago | (#46455745)

I can't wait to find out what a 'load mouth" is. Please feel free to speculate.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455509)

And you're no better. You are such a lump of crap.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455219)

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance, even if it means applauding someone who is typically not on our side, and whom we may find personally reprehensible.

Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46455289)

I don't think it's at all out of order to take some pleasure in one of the most-pro NSA people in Congress being hoisted by her own petard. Is it wrong to take pleasure from the chickens coming home to roost for Feinstein... well maybe a little, but I just can't help myself.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (0, Troll)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 8 months ago | (#46455449)

Fuck that. If an asshole makes fucktard arguments, then you can attack both the asshole and the fucktard arguments. Fuck Feinstein, she's an asshole, and her fucktard opinions are fucking retarded. I was astounded to read this news today -- not because the CIA was spying on Congress but because this piece-of-shit Senator had the ovaries to say out loud that it is somehow wrong to illegally spy on her, but not to illegally spy on other people. Fuck her. Let this be a lesson to her, and maybe she can think about it for the next 20 years after she gets voted out of office for having fucktard opinions.

Feinstein is the problem. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455507)

Feinstein is a liar and has mislead the American people on countless occasions about NSA spying and has been in lock step with the emerging police state. this is a distraction from the real constitutional violations that she has been complicit in covering up.

She deserves every insult, every invective and our complete contempt. And even more so for this latest charade and false indignation. If anything this just shows that not even the CIA respects her.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 8 months ago | (#46455655)

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

Attacking people is no way to win an argument yet it communicates a useful function for the purpose of filtering out noise.

While a crackpot might on occasion say something true is it really worth your time to wade through all of their garbage to scrape a few grains of sanity from the bottom of the pan?

If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance

She is like all of the other power hungry whackos ... she does not care unless it effects her personally...I'm not going to applaud her for that.

Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?

The problem with just supporting any statement from anyone who says anything you want to hear is that doing so negatively effects your credibility.

What if Hitler, Uncle Stalin or Ahmadinejad were to give a speech about the importance of human rights? What do you think would happen to the credibility of the human rights advocate who decides to go ahead and quote it while omitting the emoticon?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole ! (0)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46455265)

I have it on good authority that she's also a banker butt-licker with no fucking heart.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (4, Funny)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about 8 months ago | (#46455147)

Dianne, petard. Petard, Dianne.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455179)

...because she's callous and domineering? ...because people in this country like that kind of leadership so long as it is hidden behind a fake smile, decorum, and a few ginned up talking points to drool over?

Liz Cheney Syndrome (5, Insightful)

akirapill (1137883) | about 8 months ago | (#46455235)

Your rights are only important when they're also my rights.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (2, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | about 8 months ago | (#46455269)

Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because we are the little people and she is the ruling class. We only matter to gain her more power and make her husband more money.

But it was only metadata!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455319)

Why should she be concerned about the CIA spying on the Senate's computers if it was only metadata and business records?? What does Senator Feinstein have to be afraid of if she isn't a terrorist and hasn't broken the law? Only terrorists would worry about being spied on.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (2, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46455347)

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.

Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (2, Interesting)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 8 months ago | (#46455473)

To be clear, they are absolutely hacking her personal email, no doubt about it.

I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who gets illegally wiretapped -- except for people like Feinstein who openly call for practically everyone (except her) to be illegally wiretapped. She deserves it; the rest of us don't.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#46455465)

Not only that its the same Senator who argued how necessary to national security the NSA surveillance programs are after the Snowden leaks.

Hypocrisy at its finest; curb stop my constituents 4th amendment rights and thats all fine, but violate my rights and look out!

I'd like to think she might learn something from this, but I doubt she will.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455483)

No one in these so-called security agencies would be happy if we (the citizens) spied on them 24/7. I can only hope that their pervy abuse of this "legal" spying (backed by the George Bush administration) will backfire on them. You reap what you sow.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455597)

This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

It's worse than that - this is a fundamental breakdown of Congressional power that's leading to a dictatorial Presidency.

It's just fine by her when the executive branch unilaterally changes things like statutory Affordable Care Act deadlines, because it suits her political purposes.

It's fine by her to give the DNI a pass when he perjures himself in congressional testimony, because it suits her political purposes.

It's fine by her when the President makes "recess" appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was still legally in session, because it suits her political purposes.

So now, because dolts like Feinstein were all to eager to give the executive branch of the US government a pass when it suited them, we now have an out-of-control Presidency where the President is even PROUD to be out of control - he "has a pen and a phone".

What the hell are you Obama apologists going to do if a Republican becomes President and uses his "pen and ... phone" to gut Obamacare? Why can't he, when Obama himself can change the law unilaterally?

Animal Farm (3, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 8 months ago | (#46455721)

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because she - being a very wealthy Senator - is more equaler than the rest of us.

Frist Snowden! (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 8 months ago | (#46455095)

... then this!

Hypocrisy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455101)

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

Feinstein only a hypocrite ? (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46455141)

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she isPlease !

Feinstein is **MUCH MORE** than a mere "hypocrite". Feinstein is a traitor to the nation, one who has done all she can to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455175)

Ronald Reagan was a much bigger traitor. Absolute douche monger.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ? (0)

kaatochacha (651922) | about 8 months ago | (#46455455)

So was Hitler, but this discussion isn't about him either. Stick to Feinstein.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ? (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 8 months ago | (#46455505)

Hitler was a traitor?

Re:Hypocrisy (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455255)

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

The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America [wsj.com]
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 [usatoday.com]
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.

Ruling class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455299)

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

Yes, because she's a member of the ruling class in our country - the incumbent politicians. We need term limits.

Also, enough of political dynasties. No more Kennedy's, Bush's or Clintons in the Whitehouse. If the Dems run Hillary for '16, they have NO chance of getting a vote from me. The same goes for the Reps if they run Jeb or any other Bush.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 8 months ago | (#46455517)

Anyone checked her Ox lately? I think it probably has some holes in it.

Re:Hypocrisy (2)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 8 months ago | (#46455775)

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

This is the same woman who is one of the strongest supporters of gun control while she herself has one of the few concealed carry licenses in California. I don't think she even considers hypocrisy something to be ashamed of.

While this is probably true... (5, Funny)

edibobb (113989) | about 8 months ago | (#46455105)

... Senator Feinstein has significantly less technological prowess than my cat, and has exhibited this on numerous occasions.

Re:While this is probably true... (2)

Akratist (1080775) | about 8 months ago | (#46455155)

Given that statement, I'm tempted to ask if your cat is capable of flushing the toilet and what that fact would mean for the average IQ in the Senate.

Re:While this is probably true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455359)

Why do you think senators require countless aides and interns?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455541)

Why do you think Senators have Aides?

Re:While this is probably true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455305)

Damning your cat with faint praise, I see...

Schadenfreude (5, Insightful)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 8 months ago | (#46455107)

Excuse me for a moment while I savor this moment.

Re:Schadenfreude (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46455475)

Only for a moment: this needs to be pressed. Otherwise, congress will pass laws restricting the NSA from spying on congress, and maybe large corporations who donate well. Then everyone will forget about the NSA and we'll be left permanently under big brother's gaze. At least until we say something the government doesn't like, at which point they'll release or make up embarassing or illegal stuff about us, then send us to for-profit prisons to work as slaves.

Maybe a bit too cynical there, but hey, can't be too careful.

Re:Schadenfreude (1)

Arith (708986) | about 8 months ago | (#46455539)

and here I thought you were being optimistic.
Oh well.
Who likes waffles?

Re:Schadenfreude (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 8 months ago | (#46455515)

You'd think it sucks to be spied on or something.

Typical. OK to Spy on Us... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455139)

Completely typical, she spends the first 10 months defending NSA with it's spying on everyone in the world (including Americans). But the moment it seems to affect her tier of oligarchy and she's against it.

It wasn't snooping (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 8 months ago | (#46455143)

It was Freedom Filing. Murka!

Re:It wasn't snooping (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 8 months ago | (#46455719)

Actually, according to CIA, it was them attempting to retrieve stolen documents.

Citation: Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]

Wow! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455161)

Feinstein is Chair on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence! That she doesn't know what the CIA, NSA, or anyone else is doing with regard to surveillance, or is kept out of the loop on purpose, or hasn't pulled any muscle to reign it in, speaks volumes to what exactly her position in the committee does.

Quick jab... but sure as hell, when it comes to copyright and the media cartels, her power seems endless.

Can't change her spots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455165)

This is the same woman who was very pro gun control in San Francisco but went armed to city council meetings. She's fine with damage done to other people, but touch her own little empire and watch out!

Re:Can't change her spots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455295)

If you had gotten your job through an assassination, you would have went to your job armed as well.

Ah Feinstein... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46455169)

Sure is funny hearing this come from her. Too bad none of this stuff has any effect on the elections. Why is it that we allow a single politician to have such a powerful influence on the rest of us who can't vote him/her out of office? It is so wrong. If we can't abolish these committees, then we should demand that the positions been drawn in a random fashion to help mitigate the corruption of careerism.

So it's okay to spy on us, but not them. (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 8 months ago | (#46455171)

I see now.

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them. (1)

robinsonne (952701) | about 8 months ago | (#46455285)

Because they have the money to get themselves elected.

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them. (1)

Quila (201335) | about 8 months ago | (#46455309)

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

She is a very wealthy Democrat in a district that will always vote Democrat. The only one who can unseat her would be another Democrat in the primary, but the DNC powers that be would never allow it. Luckily she is quite old, so should die or retire soon. Either is fine with me.

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455353)

I see now.

Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the populace who are supposed to oversee and authorize the government. The populace can hardly effectively oversee the government when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

NSA Spies on Intelligence Committee... (1)

The_Systech (568093) | about 8 months ago | (#46455197)

And in other news.. Water is still wet... Duh! i think by now we're all pretty aware the NSA was and is spying on pretty much everyone.

CIA computers (4, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 8 months ago | (#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:CIA computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455377)

Worse. They supplied millions of pages of documents and, according to DiFi, retracted them. More than once.

The committee nonetheless included references and information in their summary that came from those documents that were -- perhaps criminally -- retracted and/or deleted.

Worse yet, the CIA's counsel then referred the congressional staffers who reviewed and put together their report to the DOJ for prosecution.

That is truly the CIA getting too big for its britches: at the very least, some CIA personnel regard the discharge of congressional duties to investigate government behavior and operations as subordinate to CIA prerogatives. At the very least, somebody at the CIA needs to go to jail. At the worst, the CIA needs to be dismembered, its charter revoked, and its useful functions distributed to other government organs.

Red Herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455389)

Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers

Feinstein is one of the most manipulative lying underhanded politicians in Washington. She doesn't give a shit that the CIA audited a classified computer, what she wants to do is grandstand about a red herring to distract from the real constitutional violations that she has been helping to conceal.

Re:CIA computers (4, Interesting)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 8 months ago | (#46455441)

Yea... they sure did have a bigger problem. Someone (intentionally or unintentionally) leaked to congress their own account of what was really going on.

I think people are being unfair to Feinstein here. This has serious ramifications on congressional oversight of intelligence orgs. At stake is the existence of any elected oversight of spooks.

Re:CIA computers (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#46455743)

No we are not being unfair to Feinstein. Secrect committees and secret courts monitoring secret agencies about what secret data they are collecting in their secret facilities; isn't a workable model on the scale we are trying to do it.

Sure state craft requires some secrets and shadows, but democracy in the form a functioning republic needs a lot a sunshine. We have been trying to get people like her to understand we have gone way way way to far with this crap. We have created a monster "We the people" can't control, they 1% who can get elected Senator can't control either. What we have is something that is almost completely beyond control at this point. That monster is crushing our most basic principles under boots year by year, month by month, day by day, moment to moment; destroying the very society it was breed to protect.

Its high time to we take the NSA out behind the tool shed and put it down. The CIA and FBI need a sound kicking; right sizing and reminding of their core missions.

Re:CIA computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455525)

Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers.

My complaint is that the NSA and CIA are not supposed to monitor what I am looking at on my computer.

It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint,

As long as Feinstein does not consider my complaint reasonable, she is being a fucking hypocrite. And if she cites the constitution to back her up in this case rather than the absurdity of an "oversight" committee that is being targeted by their own spies, then she is expressing her belief that constitutional rights are not something for the hoi polloi born without a silver spoon in their mouth, just like there were people arguing that constitutional rights were not something for people born without white skin.

Of course, she'd be a fucking hypocrite even when just considering the oversight angle: in a democracy, the populace is the oversight committee for the government. Not the other way round.

Uh OH (2)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 8 months ago | (#46455233)

And here we are told that the CIA only spies on other nations and not within the US. I will say that her position is such that an enemy who turned her would have a serious advantage and therefore she does need deep investigation as a matter of national security as do all others involved in the intelligence community. The catch is that the CIA is not the org that is supposed to do this sort of thing. Just maybe this world is so dangerous that all of this spying needs to be going on. Maybe I am lucky in not knowing the evil going on around me.

Um what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455267)

I didn't see the issue being that CIA provided the computers. If company provides a computer you submit to their acceptable use policy along with their ability to view what is on or done with said machine. If it had been a virus that was loaded on the machines in questions the Senator would be complaining that they allowed it to happen.

Re:Um what? (1)

ray-auch (454705) | about 8 months ago | (#46455387)

Yup, not only that, but on CIA territory:

The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location

So, you go visit the CIA, you sit down at a CIA computer, and you expect they are not monitoring its use ? I wouldn't expect that when going to any client site let alone a f***ing intelligence agency.

What next ? She going to complain that the CIA computer also intercepted messages sent to someone in the Ecuadorian embassy in London ?

What could possibly go wrong? (2)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 8 months ago | (#46455351)

Let's see ... you're investigating potential war crimes perpetrated by the CIA, so you store all of the records of the investigation on an air-gapped computer system located at a CIA facility in Virginia [nytimes.com] . What could possibly go wrong?

CIA searched the CIA's own computers? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 8 months ago | (#46455361)

It looks like the Senator is complaining that the CIA searched some CIA computers, not that they searched the Senator's computer. Am I misreading this, or is this a bunch of noise about NOTHING?

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455491)

You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455657)

You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

Par for the course with Feinstein. On that course, she has a handicap larger than her IQ.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455591)

I may own the accomidations and bathrooms as part of owning the hotel but that doesn't mean I can put up hidden cameras there and sell the images to porn sites.

Possible prosecution? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 8 months ago | (#46455421)

Possible prosecution? Ding ding ding! Another lie has been detected!

Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455427)

Gee, maybe this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't let the executive branch run roughshod over Congressional oversight once Obama took office.

What are you doing about Obama unilaterally modifying the statutory deadlines in the Affordable Care Act LAW your legislative body passed, Senator Feinstein?

Oh, right, you did and continue to do NOTHING.

What did you do when the Director of National Intelligence LIED to you?

Oh, right, you did and continue to do NOTHING.

What did you do when the Attorney General of the United States was held in contempt for refusing to turn over documents subpenaed by Congress?

Oh, right, you did and continue to do NOTHING.

Gee, so members of the executive branch - like the CIA - now think they can shit on you?

Well, maybe you shouldn't have let them when it suited your political purposes.

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455513)

Finally the playing feild is starting to level out! If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen! No reason our elected officials sould be immune to system they created! Now it's a worldwide race to see who can spy the most. Governments, corporations and individuals are all welcome in the brave new would, maybe our founding fathers weren't so dumb after all! Should have left privacy alone, good luck getting that kitty back in the sack!

Wait... (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | about 8 months ago | (#46455563)

They visit a secret "undisclosed CIA location", use PCs that are "provided" for them by the CIA, then are surprised that the CIA knows what's on them?

If I walk over to my friend's house, he lets me borrow his PC, I write a nasty email criticizing my friend, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he somehow found out what I'd written.

The biggest big government police state lover... (1)

Zeio (325157) | about 8 months ago | (#46455615)

The biggest big government police state lover Swinestein is mad at the evil police state she helped create?

Why so serious.... (1)

ssimpson (133662) | about 8 months ago | (#46455675)

As always, Glenn Greenwald has thought provoking [twitter.com] narrative.

Dear Diane: DU-UH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46455739)

When you unleash a mad dog (unbridled, unregulated and uncontrolled spying), don't complain when it bites you.

Consider this: The NSA/CIA/U.N.C.L.E./Control is designated to spy on "enemies of the state."

However, they also know that the things that can REALLY AFFECT THEIR JOBS, BUDGETS AND MISSIONS are being discussed in an environment that they already have wired to the tits for spying on the rest of us.

Now, only the US Congress can put two and two together, and come up with one.

DUH.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?