[worewood]

So it's like a canary: the senator has the answer but wants to make it public.

If the answer was "no" then he wouldn't be pushing for it, so the answer is obviously yes, they are buying data of american citizens in bulk, warrantlessly

[bilbo0s]

Even if that's true, the mitigation is not to sell it.

Even better, forbid its collection.

This is all theater. The answers are obvious and easy to legislate. Simply forbid the practice of collecting the data in the first place. But they won't. The fact is they want these companies to collect and aggregate our data. But recently privacy advocates have been asking for a ban on that practice. So the corrupt politicians are trying to distract the general populace with privacy theater in a desperate and pathetic attempt to alter the public gaze.

Enter this "no-action" on the NSA.

[spacephysics]

But I think there’s additional layers at play here.

Its less of the logistics of outlawing it, it seems this is more akin to “sunlight is the best disinfectant”

I wouldn’t be surprised if this senator doesn’t have the backing or the political capital to pull this off successfully (just submitting legislature vs withholding appointment)

I think anything that can be exposed to more mainstream viewers has a higher likelihood of getting “better” sooner. (“Better” being highly relative)

[salawat]

No. The Senator does not have the answer.

They couldn't ask the question if they'd already signed the appropriate contracts on which access to SCI or other classified info is underpinned, If they had, asking the question would amount to a tacit disclosure.

Other Senators who have signed those documents have confirmed as much. Once the IC gets burned by you, even if they don't press charges due to political impossibility, you don't get invited to those parties anymore.

[lern_too_spel]

Wyden is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. As such, he is guaranteed by law to have access to all intelligence activities. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/about

[salawat]

There is a difference between "guaranteed by law to have access to everything" and "has the prerequisite index and shape of data on hand with which to formulate queries capable of being answered such that access to the entire data space is possible".

The former is likely true. However, the lack of the latter, (which I assure you, is the case as SCI (Secret Compartmentalized Information) was developed specifically for that reason), sets an upper bound on the effective capabilities of anyone tasked with the job of oversight. You must be 10% smarter than that which you oversee to really do it effectively.

If you've ever chased down a memory leak, you'll understand what I mean. Senator Wyden cannot oversee the super secret Soylent Green program until somebody slips up enough to someone for word of a program that converts people to food to make it back to him to ask about.

[Passport4-Lurk]

> "Under certain circumstances, the President may restrict access to covert action activities to only the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, and the House and Senate leadership. By law, even in these rare cases, all Committee Members will be aware of such circumstances and be provided a “general description” of the covert action information that is fully briefed only to the leadership."

I guess that depends on what "general description" means. Take Stellar Wind for example, as briefings were limited to the Gang of Eight. [1] I would like to know what the "general description" of that program was and what other members were informed of.

[1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/brief-history-programma...