Congressional Oversight? Dianne Feinstein Says She's 'Not A High-Tech Techie' But Knows NSA Can't Abuse Surveillance
from the oh-really? dept
As the NSA and defenders of NSA surveillance are trying to minimize the damage from the latest leak, which revealed the details of the XKeyscore program, they’re bending over backwards to insist that this program is both limited and immune from abuse. We’ve already mentioned that the claims that it can’t be abused are laughable since there’s already a well-documented history of abuse. However, even more bizarre is the following quote from Senate Intelligence Committee boss, Senator Dianne Feinstein (a staunch defender of the surveillance programs):
Feinstein said, “I am not a high-tech techie, but I have been told that is not possible.”
Note that among Feinstein’s jobs is oversight of this program. Yet, what kind of “oversight” is it when she admits that she’s not qualified to understand the technology but “has been told” that such abuses are not possible? That doesn’t seem like oversight. That seems like asking the NSA “can this system be abused?” and the NSA saying “oh, no no no, not at all.” That’s not exactly oversight, now is it?
Filed Under: dianne feinstein, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, surveillance, technology
Comments on “Congressional Oversight? Dianne Feinstein Says She's 'Not A High-Tech Techie' But Knows NSA Can't Abuse Surveillance”
So we found a person who falls for the Nigerian Prince scam.
“You know, he told me the guy was a prince so I gave him all my belongings. I’m sure I will receive all the gazillion dollars he promised me.”
It’s amusing and depressing to see how these people ignore how the mindless defense of an illegal and failed scheme makes them look like complete dumb-asses.
Re: Re:
Q: How many Senators do you have to have dirt on to make them ignore you?
A: None, if you tell them it can’t be abused.
Re: Re: Re:
Q: How many senators does it take to turn on a computer?
A: What’s a computer.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Q: What’s a computer?
A: A way to charge someone twice for the same offense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That was brilliant!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
D: I am not a nerd!
Re: Re: Re:
I got nothing on this … could someone finish it?
Q: How does a Senator screw in a light bulb?
A:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: He/she calls maintenance.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Writes up a bill to screw in lightbulb. Get into partisan disagreement. Rewrite bill to allow for the provision to have a lightbulb screwed in.
Have congress vote the bill down.
Sit in the dark.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Don’t be absurd. For something as simple as screwing in a lightbulb there would easily be bipartisain support for a budget that allocated 3.5 million dollars in a no-bid contract for a private firm to screw in 1500 light bulbs per-year followed quickly by bipartisain support for a budget that allocated an additional 7 million dollars in a no-bid contract for a private firm to determine the number of light bulbs that actually need to be screwed in per year.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Damn. You are of course correct. The appropriate response to Hephaestus’ riddle would have been.
Q: How does a Senator screw in a lightbulb?
A: MONEY!!!
Bonus points if you said trickle down economics.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: Using the Incredible Shrinking Machine, both the senator and the sexually provocative intern can fit inside the light bulb. We’re not high-tech techies, but we’re told this is perfectly possible.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oops… missed this one, and better than mine. Plus one, sir.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably the same way they screw the public.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Buy stock of light bulb company via the subsidiary of their shell company. Promote said Company’s light bulbs as brighter thus allowing for better security from terrorists and child molesters. Also fight for local light bulb installer union and how the LED consortium is trying to take away good American jobs,
Then after all the lobbying, fighting, delaying tactics, and closed door trade agreements are done: we pay 16.63 million for a guy with a top secret security clearance to come in and screw in a light bulb.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And next year we’ll pay 13.33 million for two guys to to a study on congressional light bulb expenditures. We’ll conclude there needs to be reforms then redo the whole process again the year after the results of which will, of course, be exactly the same only with different labels.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: First, entice an intern to get into the light bulb with them…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Start by hiring an intern and arranging a junket to somewhere with amazing scenery and an extremely large lightbulb.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: I don’t know, but I bet it’s a shocking story.
Re: Re:
SwineStein is a pig dog that would fall for it.
Seriously...
I gotta wonder…
Are the people these morons go against THAT bad that people continue to vote for them?
Re: Seriously...
They are in my state.
Re: Seriously...
To elaborate, a lot of the candidates I’ve seen against incumbents are single-issue candidates (usually abortion). It’s hard to vote for someone who only has one goal.
Also, the incumbent’s job is basically full-time campaigning. That’s how they spend most of their time – raising money to get re-elected.
they are itching for me to leak a 40gb hard drive a mine
that shows how someone trolled all the data on my web forum then used quotes by me out of context during the bush years….
hell the proof was right on national tv as bush and Colin Powell rammed off bullshit….
they better quit lying , its already been abused
Right, just like it’s impossible for a contractor to exfiltrate classified training documents with details on the program… :-/
“That’s not exactly oversight, now is it?”
It’s the OTHER definition of oversight.
Re: Re:
Yep it’s an oversight!
Re: Re:
Yea, one of the NSA’s “special” definitions… like their definition of relevant.
Re: Re:
It’s not oversight, it’s overlook. Sight, look, it’s all the same thing right?
I am not a highly competent law maker, but I have been told the position is immune to corruption.
Rule 1 of Government: Everything can be Abused.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is not qualified to work in government.
Re: Re:
Of course she doesn’t actually think that.
Re: Re:
In the computer security business, there’s variants of this rule such as “if it can be accessed legally, it can be accessed illegally”.
I think, really, it’s rule 1 of living with other human beings, not just government.
Question of the day.
Maybe if she were allowed to review those leaked document she could do the oversight. But unfortunately they are classified and would pose GRAVE DANGER to the CHILDREN. She has made the right choice to rmain an idiot. Also NSA analis please fix my spelling/grammer errors before this post reaches the net. Thanks.
I’m not a Senator and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee
…
but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
How exactly does someone with no intelligence and no tech knowledge become a boss of a government committee that deals with those exact things? Just the fact that she holds this position is completely shameful and embarrassing.
Re: Re:
Come on. I think we all agree “House Intelligence” is an oxymoron, therefore a moron is a perfect person to be part of such a group.
Re: Re:
The statements actually belie intelligence. This is what people that vote for people like Feinstein love to hear. If their candidate actually admitted that they understood the tech they’d be a ‘nerd’ or a ‘techie’ and those people are bad. Of course she knows it can be abused she’d just never actually say it.
Re: Re:
Are you kidding? Having no knowledge is essential to obtaining oversight positions. It is like juries, they don’t want anyone who actually knows enough to cry bullshit at their obvious lies.
Have you been beating your wife?
We’ve already seen for a fact how the NSA can abuse surveillance, so I’m not sure why Senator Feinstein is continuing to argue that this can’t happen. I should ask her: has she been been beating her husband? Because he looks remarkably…horse-ish. B-)
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”
-Proverbs 14:15
Re: Re:
“The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.”
Sorry, can’t be dealing with thys and eths
I wonder if she feel the same way about surgeons:
“Heck, no Senator. I’m no surgeon. But anyone can do an appendectomy, right? Now, just relax and lie there for a minute while I look for my angle grinder.”
Dianne Feinstein is correct
The NSA simply cannot abuse surveillance. It simply is not possible in a technical or legal sense.
The definition of ‘abuse’ is a classified secret, but the American people should be assured that the NSA will operate within and honor that secret definition of ‘abuse’.
The secret definition of ‘abuse’ can be secretly changed without secret notice.
“That seems like asking the NSA “can this system be abused?” and the NSA saying…..
[MontyPython] “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all! No, no, no. No. No. Well, yes. A bit. A little bit. Well, quite a bit, actually. In fact, almost totally.” [/MontyPython]
there is only one possible solution for her and that is to be removed from office. what would a boss say, any boss, if the person working for him said he couldn’t do the job, but someone else had told him how to do it and that it would be ‘OK’? straight out the door, exactly what should happen here.
the biggest problem with politics and perhaps US politics in particular is that there is too much by far of this ‘good speech’ crap, old mates club and everything you can think of except being ‘the right person for the job’. consider the amount of ‘clout’ this woman has and then to see she doesn’t know anything about the very thing that has been/is being used to spy on just about the whole world. that is so scary, it’s untrue! she may not know much about it, but she knows enough to deny what it can do, knowing full well that she is spouting nothing but lies! she needs to go and quick!!
Re: Re:
there is only one possible solution for her and that is to be removed from office. what would a boss say, any boss, if the person working for him said he couldn’t do the job, but someone else had told him how to do it and that it would be ‘OK’? straight out the door, exactly what should happen here.
So who are you going to replace her with, Wyden? He’s a lawyer. Wyden chairs energy and natural resources but has no particular training in those fields. His state is a big producer of lumber and forest products, hence his interest. Before you sputter in indignation, why don’t you review the credentials of all of the committee chairs and find ONE chair with specific training. And then consider that the head of the railroads doesn’t know how to run a locomotive.
Re: Re: Re:
The issue isn’t that she doesn’t know how to run a locomotive it’s that she says she doesn’t know how to run a locomotive in the exact same sentence as stating that the locomotive cannot crash.
Re: Re: to get less-unqualified replacements
If we want a far better House and Senate than we have now, we merely have to grab people at random off the street. I’m serious. If we had a draft, then we would no longer be selectively accumulating the most self-serving and least qualified (but best self-marketing) slice of our populace.
Re: Re: Re: to get less-unqualified replacements
I’ve long been partial to this idea (on the basis that desire for office should be disqualification for office). But a friend came up with an objection that I could never quite answer…
if politicians are drafted, then the natural result will be that the lower-level functionaries will become the real power, simply by virtue of the fact that they will stick around while the politicians come and go.
Once lower-level functionaries are the real power, you have a defacto hidden government and less transparency and accountability than we have even now.
Re: Re: Re:2 to get less-unqualified replacements
each of the lower-level functionaries leaders are appointed but the basic foundation is still there … our problem is they seem to forget the honor that’s bestowed on them and that the Constitution is the highest law of the land . and most of our elected officials are career politicians and former agents .. they and we are incapable of thinking outside the box for the most part. .. remember these words absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Re: Re: Re:2 to get less-unqualified replacements
what makes you think that’s not happening now?
Re: Re: Re:3 to get less-unqualified replacements
Oh, I think it is. Except it’s not the lower-level functionaries who are the hidden government, but powerful industry groups.
Re: Re: Re:4 to get less-unqualified replacements
No, the bureucrates that don’t rotate over whom you call low-level are the ones who run things and have the power, they do the bidding of the industry groups or sometimes the elected officials, but only if they choose to. The NSA would be a good example to see how it works.
If you think a bit, the only difference between the draft version and the current version is how the people who rotate are selected. They still rotate, and the problem you mention doesn’t change.
Re: Re: Re:
She’ll just go to work for the lobbying industry just like the rest of our government officials.. POWER UPS aren’t just for gaming ..
Hello NSA. If your reading this, Well done on pulling the wool over everyone eyes and when that truth is reveal people still don’t want to understand. You have silky skills.
Hello NSA, you guys rock 😀 Would it be possible to leak the emails of the writers of breaking bad. Totally want to find out how it ends 🙂
Oh, come now. We all know she outsourced her oversight duties to a call center in some other country.
I ain't a smart woman...
So, because of idiotic bimbo says it’s ok… it’s ok?!
How do these people get elected?! And even more curious is how such a complete techno-moron gets put on this sort of committee, which by it’s very definition requires a member to be somewhat of a “high-tech techie”.
How about we start requiring members of certain committees to take tests to demonstrate their ability to actually be useful before being allowed on a committee.
If it’s a committee on agriculture, then they should have SOME agricultural experience. If it’s a committee that deals with high tech issues, then they should have more knowledge about computers than just knowing where the on switch is.
MORONS.
“These are not the surveillance abuses you are looking for.”
Lets be real
Her job is to provide oversight of the process, not the mechanics of software.
Re: Lets be real
This is true. However, you have at least several hundred, if not several thousand employees all trained in security who are able to break any system in the world… except their own. The system that they made.
And we’re just supposed to swallow that, because the lunatic fringe said so. No rational or technical reason.
Re: Lets be real
Despite what useless managers will tell you, you can’t oversee without understanding. If you are taking someone else’s word without understanding, then they are the ones doing the overseeing.
Time to retire Dianne...
Feinstein was a maverick who helped break the “glass ceiling” when she was first elected. Unfortunately, she is now part of that ceiling… 🙁 Dianne, it is time you retired, or get retired by your constituents – you don’t understand the new tech modus, and if you don’t, you cannot possibly represent your constituents properly. Hopefully, they will realize, and act upon that.
Re: Time to retire Dianne...
I remember when “maverick” was a good thing, rather than meaning “reckless and irresponsible”.
Credits
I’m not a Senator and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
but I play one on TV.
In other news, Farmer Brown says his chicken coop is completely secure. The fox assured him that it was.
I’m not a preachy preacher but I’ve been told the Bible says God is an empty kraft dinner box.
The more comes out on this mess, the more pissed I get. The whole thing is a sham. From start to finish there is no oversight, there is no legality outside the changing of words to mean what they aren’t, and with oversight from idiots like this you can be assured no ability to actually oversee anything.
No wonder out government is in the mess it’s in. It’s the rich leading the rich and no one else has a clue.
A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway. Nothing is moving.
Suddenly, a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down the
window and asks, “What’s going on?”
“Terrorists have kidnapped Congress, and are asking for a $10
million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all
in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car,
taking up a collection.”
“How much is everyone giving, on average?” the driver asks.
The man replies, “About a gallon.”
If she knows anything about the field she administers has nothing to do with competence in politics and I know that the writer knows that too.
Just attacking the poor fool in the committee is pretty worthless since it is a systemic problem with no easy solution.
A politician is a person who is either arrogant and stupid or has no specific opinion on most issues. They are elected based on their ability to speak and endear the old media and because of donations. When they are in office the people who donated is lobbying to get their moneys worth.
Last I heard, politicians often do not look at laws because they haven’t got the time. Instead, they read every lobby-opinion or has people finding the most important to read through. By doing that, they are assuring they know the arguments for or against a law, which in a mudthrowing-debate is more valuable. After that they look up who donated the most and what opinion they had on this law, they determine their stand on that issue.
That system somewhat works when there are more or less equal and opposite opinions among those lobbying, but it is completely bullocks in terms of copyright and any kind of security spending.
Copyright is made into a clusterf** of companies wanting harder laws and most of them have no upper limit on how extreme, while mostly non-donating groups are making up the opposition. Today tech industry has entered the battle on the small groups side and that is the only reason anything can ever change in that debate among politicians…
Security spending is a problem because of the “better safe than sorry”-mentality in politics. Look at what happened in Benghazi and how Obama was grilled there! That is a sign of the real problem.
Add to that bias, a 100 % lack of real opposing views and open debate on secret service spending and you have every red alert of a democratically estranged group with a lack of real oversight since no politicians dare challenge the better safe than sorry doctrine and an eternal downpour of spending based on lobbying activity.
Silicon Valley
Yet she represents the tech capital of the country?
Yet another reason she needs to go, she does not represent our state.
The Derpside is strong with this one
For the person whose only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
If you’re a legislator and there is a problem, your solution is to pass a law.
Make it illegal to do something, and that thing can’t happen, see? Problem solved.
Abuse? What abuse?
How can anyone who can get elected to the Senate and put two words together,not understand that this surveillance is not already an abuse of the governments powers in a representative democracy such as ours.
Has she not “atleast” had the fourth amendment of the U S Constitution read to her??
I think there should be a new category of articles on Techdirt called “Retards”.
Most of the Feinstein articles would fall under that.
Anti-intellectualism prevails in the senate.
AGAIN with the Well, I’m no nerd schtick. I thought that went out with SOPA.
Disappointed.
Re: Anti-intellectualism prevails in the senate.
Ha, it never will, none of them will be smart enough to understand the things they legislate
Spystein, I am disappoint.
Feinstein makes me want to throw up in my Mouth ! She is one Woman I can not stand.Corrupt Freak ! Spy Queen ! A-Hole Supreme ! Bunch of dumb losers Vote in schmucks like her.
Re: "Bunch of dumb losers"
Speaking of one of the bunch of dumb losers, it’s not like alternatives were any better.
She won’t be getting any more of my votes, mind you, but I have good reasons to not endorse a GOP rival. Especially considering that said candidates would probably be pro-surveillance anyway.
Same as the old boss.
It's not if it's being abused...
It’s how is it being abused… if someone or something can access it (so called ‘authorized use’), then they can abuse it.
After-all, we’re talking about logic here… how the hell can a computer program tell the intent of a user, it only knows _if_ they can access it.
Compare and contrast.
Is this like the we torture only terrorists thing?
We don’t access it until there’s something to be discovered. Once we discover something significant that justifies our accessing it.
Because we magically detect when there’s significant information with our magic significant information detector.
Just like our magic terrorist detector which can determine a terrorist without due process.
Re: Compare and contrast.
The detector that magically catches all the terrorists they create themselves but totally misses the terrorists they don’t create?
That detector?
Hey, Diane. Go flog yourself. Opus Dei style.
Re: Re:
Oh golly, not another internet dance fad!
Somebody should tell her that “oversight” doesn’t mean looking over the horizon.
Not possible
If abuse of NSA systems is not possible they are the only branch of government to achieve uptopia.
Thousands of Medicare, tax, social security and transport records are trawlled by government employees for ‘less than professional’ reasons every year. (eg: checking up on your ex-wife’s new partner)
Dianne Feinstein's overlooking oversight of NSA
To quote fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton