Edward Snowden: Congress Has Immunity from Spying, But You Don’t

I’ll admit from the start that the Snowden chat at the Guardian was a brilliant journalistic and technical feat. At the same time, it’s clear that Snowden is still closely following the news, and presumably shaping his answers for maximal political effect.

So I take this comment, the last words he spoke on the chat, with a grain of salt.

This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

Certainly, it would seem technically feasible to block all Verizon numbers associated with official Congressional communications devices. It would be far harder to block the abundant communications devices tied to campaign activity.

From this, shall we assume the White House and Courts are also immune?

Contrast that with Snowden’s claims about we peons’ communications.

NSA likes to use “domestic” as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as “incidental” collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of “warranted” intercept, it’s important to understand the intelligence community doesn’t always deal with what you would consider a “real” warrant like a Police department would have to, the “warrant” is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

[snip]

US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it’s important to understand that policy protection is no protection – policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection – a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the “widest allowable aperture,” and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn’t stop being protected communications just because of the IP they’re tagged with.

I do believe I pointed out James Clapper using “domestic” as just on such weasel word (I prefer to call it Orwellian turd-splat) this morning!

Clearly, Snowden is trying to make it clear that our Congressional overseers aren’t protecting our interests as well as the NSA has protected theirs (for good reasons under the Constitution, I would add).

So this claim may just be an effort to make us more pissed.

Remember, however, the day after the first leak on this, Eric Holder testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Barbara Milulski, who (as a tremendously powerful Senator representing NSA) had not previously publicly ever met NSA surveillance she didn’t like, was up in arms about the possibility the government was surveilling her communications.

Those concerns had been placated by the time Keith Alexander testified a day or so later.

So while Snowden is clearly trying to push the debate, it is also quite likely that the immunity comment is true.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

21 Responses to Edward Snowden: Congress Has Immunity from Spying, But You Don’t

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel White House fence jumper story would be more Hollywoodesque if Bo and Sunny took down the intruder.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @drgrist Does missile defense count?
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MasaccioFDL Well, I been in the box a few times. Got laughed out every time. Couple times was w/judge I knew who was cackling at me too.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dangillmor Mexicans might sneak Ebola infected ISIL members across the northern border, you know.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel "People who've not read NSA doc in 9 months haven't been effective at rebutting CitizenFour," as if someone said, "let's get former intern"
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel When contractors who've been gone from NSA for 14 years write pieces as if they're still there and NSA promotes it, you gotta wonder...
27mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick Actually we also have docs to prove that that were officially released. Even training docs! @daveaitel @headhntr
53mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @csoghoian But that's when NSA submitted outdated docs from to hide what they were doing from FISC in 2007. @daveaitel
55mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @csoghoian: The last time @daveaitel worked at NSA, Bill Clinton was President. He can't "debunk" anything re: NSA's internet surveillan…
55mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel So should I debunk that Business Insider piece or point out why USAT on USAF is wrong? #NSAFactCheck
59mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade They play an important legal role--been half-assed wanting to chase this down for a while. And now, VIOLA!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel When @wellsbennett discovers that all this time Mike Rogers has actually been talking shite. http://t.co/M5xRxb7nkN
1hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2013
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30