If Congress demands it? Yes, they can brief Congress on what they're doing. They were created by Congress and the career positions continue to exist at the pleasure of the Congress.

Further, there are procedures that exist to do so. Sealed sessions have been and are used for sensitive subjects to avoid inadvertent disclosures.

"All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes" are what we have. Their existence, their ability to speak freely without fear of prosecution, their diversity of opinions & constituencies, and their power to change things, function as a crucial check on the power of the executive branch. As representatives of the people it IS THEIR JOB to ensure that large secret programs that the public would never approve of, or which violate their oath to abide by the Constitution, are either reformed adequately or leaked, neutralized in some way, cancelled, or never funded in the first place. If they fail to do that for long enough because they've decided they're not able to, or because they don't want to know, then this all falls apart and becomes tyrannical the first time we get a President that wants power.

Notably, it ceases to be an option for Congress if the objectionable business is objectionable because it's a spy program that been turning Congressmen into blackmailed sycophants. That is hardly out of the scope of the technical power we have granted the NSA.

If they have created these programs and they've started to take on a life of their own, to the point that Congressional oversight and regulation is not adequate to control their activities (and yes, it appears that is what happened), then we have one option: Kill the tumor with radiation and a clean scalpel before it metastasizes further. Defund, publicize, interrogate, leak the objectionable programs, and end them. Maybe catch some loyal civil servants who were just following orders in the crossfire; But that's how it goes - they became an enemy, foreign or domestic, of the people and their Constitution. Too bad.

Sure, we might lose some tissue, but it's a damn sight better than letting a malignant cancer of our democratic system run wild.

> Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release.

Absolutely not. Keeping your (nominal) overseers appraised of your activities is not the same thing at all as informing the whole world in front of cameras. Your implicit argument is that Congress couldn't be trusted with the secrets the NSA would reveal. But this is countered by opinting out that the NSA can't be trusted with the secrets it has.

Congress (all of it) should be briefed on the overview. The details (some of which are, rightly, classified)? No way. That's pretty much the established way of dealing with classified information - all of Congress does not get to know the details.

> ...the NSA can't be trusted with the secrets it has.

Very true.

Made even more apparent by a contractor having access to so many of their "secrets".

> So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary.

No, its not. At least, not in any principle grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.

Do you disagree that secrets during war are necessary?

> Do you disagree that secrets during war are necessary?

I don't think Executive Branch secrets from Congress -- that is, things that will not be disclosed honestly on request by the Congress as such (which is not the same as individual members of Congress acting on their own) -- are ever justified or necessary, in war or peace.

To the extent that secrets (e.g., from the enemy in time of war) are necessary for which not routinely disclosing information to Congress is justifiable as a security measure, the Executive acting appropriately to maintain the confidence of Congress in its use of its discretion so as to avoid Congress needing to demand information which should be kept secret is equally necessary. Any President who honestly feels that they cannot protect the security of the nation while responding to Congress's demands for information should recognize that they have failed to maintain the confidence necessary to function effectively as President and resign.

Foreign enemies are always a convenient excuse for lack of domestic accountability, but they are never a sufficient excuse.

Robert Gates put it eloquently: the US is in its own wars of choice, and not in any war that is forced upon it. So, what do you think about the secrets that would conceal the real reasons of the war that requests to be secret?

bosma was asking: "Are there any things that should be kept secret during the course of war?". The obvious answer that he's fishing for is "Yes. Stuff that's critical to OPSEC.". [0]

This is a silly question to ask. AFAICT, Congress hasn't ever been briefed on the day-to-day of wartime activities. They are often lied to about our motivations for declaring war. That's obviously a very bad thing to do.

[0] The funny thing about stuff that's classified for OPSEC reasons is that it has a really short shelf life. That is to say, stuff that's sensitive OPSEC stuff can often be declassified in a matter of hours or weeks... because the actions described by the classified information have taken place and everyone knows that they took place. (e.g. information about troop movements in preparation for tomorrow's assault would be sensitive until the assault happens.)

> AFAICT, Congress hasn't ever been briefed on the day-to-day of wartime activities.

But they're also not normally briefed on the high-level view of intelligence sources and methods, to ensure that those sources and methods remain available. During WWII it's not like the Navy briefed Congress that they could read much of the Japanese Navy's messages.

And even with that precaution the U.S. Navy came perilously close to tipping off Japan. A journalist embedded with Naval forces somehow gained information that the U.S. Navy had known Japan's fleet composition at Midway before the battle, and that was published in the Chicago Tribune. If Japan had been paying attention she would have realized that her ciphers were very possibly being read and taken countermeasures that would have destroyed the usefulness of that intelligence source.

To be clear, I think Congress has the right to have access to whatever information is needed to effectively oversee the NSA. But I don't see how that would imply all 535, every 2 years, being read-in to full TS and SAPs and given all details. That would make more sense for the specific subcommittee charged with overseeing intelligence, but unfortunately (for privacy advocates), that's the very same panel of people most supportive of NSA.

> That is to say, stuff that's sensitive OPSEC stuff can often be declassified in a matter of hours or weeks... because the actions described by the classified information have taken place and everyone knows that they took place.

Minor quibble - this isn't always true.

If a hacker knows two vulnerabilities to exploit, but only exploits one of them, he keeps an advantage by keeping the extent of his intelligence a secret. If he only knows of the one that was exploited, he's not benefitted by admitting a lack of intelligence.

Apply to enemy troop positions and competitor pricing strategies as appropriate.

> Minor quibble - this isn't always true.

I know. That's why I said "often can be declassified", rather than saying "always can be declassified". :)

What war?

I was a defense contractor during the Cold War, a scary time in many ways.

It profoundly troubles me that the military intelligence complex is acting like we are still in the Cold War. The world changes and things done in the past are often not the rigt things to do in the present and future. This is a brittle mindset, looking at the past and not the current situation.

I'll play along with the hypotheticals and assume that the NSA don't lie when questioned by Congress. In that scenario, the NSA can give reasonably straight answers that don't compromise national security.

"Are you spying on suspected terrorists?" - "Of course we are. That's our job."

"Who are you spying on, and how?" - "We can't reveal that. It's National Security."

"Are you spying on people that you have no reasonable suspicion of being terrorists?" - "No."

"Fine".

The problem comes when you have lie about that last one when asked by Congress.

The corruption of government starts with its secrets. A truly free people don't keep secrets. Somewhere in this grey mass is a line, and that line gets crossed and crossed, over and over again.

What secret is worth keeping if its keeping results in oppression, tyranny, inhumanity? Why should those who are given the right to murder, get away with murder - just because it is 'unsafe' to prosecute the murders?

The reason, always given, is "[some secret reason]". Well, the saying goes, keep the secret .. or else! Or else .. 'bad things happen'. Yet .. Those who work tirelessly to keep secrets, are themselves the bad things .. happening.

What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all!

It is only when a secret is kept that lines are drawn between two life-forms who would otherwise, ordinarily, be cooperating/communicating to increase their combined potential. Profiting from this - always - is another, third life-form, whose control over the others' secrets will give him two slaves.

The answer to your question: Congress, if it were doing its job, would have already read Snowdens' statements into the public record, and there wouldn't be any debate about the criminal proceedings that would then follow: all the tyrants would be frog-marched directly to jail.

It may yet .. still .. happen. Let us wait and see.

> A truly free people don't keep secrets.

> What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all!

This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, embarrassing taste in pop songs.

I don't understand how you can be angry about privacy violations on the one hand, and arguing for our society being some kind of secretless panopticon on the other.

The thing you must understand is that I do not actually consider a society with any investment in state secrecy to be actually functioning. Actually, a society ruled by secrets is little more than a mafia, playing charades.

But I see you are limiting your viewpoint to 'what is real' and not to 'what could be done differently about the situation'. That's okay with me, to 'keep it real'.

But I have no desire to live in a society ruled by its secrets, as the USA (and other sham states) are. If we are to have true freedom, it must include freedom from the liability of having to keep a secret. The USA is almost imploding against the weight of its own secrets; which serve to hide crimes, and little else.

Beneath every revelation of a state secret is a crime that was committed - or will be committed - against another human being. A catalog of tools whose sole purpose is the mass-violation of human rights, in hands other than 'the elected officials deemed worthy enough to hold the keys', is a criminal instrument. I do not personally agree that we need to construct such things; it is because of profit from suffering that such things are allowed, in the secret chambers of the American Security Elite.

Ok, here's an experiment for you. Why don't you broadcast every single detail of your life, every minute of it, even the parts you don't want others to see? If you don't, you must be hiding something and be committing crimes against humanity. This is how your argument reads.

You've cut out an important bit: I am not governing anyone, nor do I hold the right to murder other human beings without repercussion.

We don't know that. All we know is that you're keeping secrets.

Right now, I'm openly sharing something.

But you give us no proof of what you are saying.

We need a trusted entity to check what you are saying is true.

So how about a mother then, raising her child and pregnant with a second. Should she have to reveal every single detail about her life while she has parental custody?

I read the parent comment's argument as suggesting that secrets should be inversely proportional to power.

What about government commercial negotiation information, surely the government can (should!) keep that secret at least until the negotiations are over, otherwise every single purchase made will have them ripped off due to information asymmetry.

Troop locations are another one. If you know exactly where everything is it gives you a huge advantage, and to a lesser extent where they've been.

Surely there are some secrets we can acknowledge the government can keep, for a time. The problem only arises when the executive branch abuse the classification system and label embarassing, non-sensitive (to the country, maybe not to their reelection) information as sensitive information.

In all honesty, I am an Open Government proponent, which means that I think the justice and pressure of having the entire society able to monitor the situation will self-heal any attempts at exploitation. It is only because you don't know how much the Government pays for things, that it is able to put you into debt so it can pay for the things it 'thinks it wants'.

Turn the light on the whole thing; make all procurement open to the public, simply put a 24/7 webcam on anyone who is functioning in a government role, and let it work. Open communication is the only thing that has truly propelled the species forward .. and yes I acknowledge it is 'a radical position' with fatal flaws, but alas ones viewpoint doesn't always have to be .. Right .. now, when discussing the nature of our abundant universe..

While i harbour no affection for the American Govt, but you seem to be targeting it a lot for having secrets. From what everyone understands from your comments is that there shouldn't be secrets. A secret = hidden crime. Well the irony here is that, this is EXACTLY how the NSA seems to be functioning. It doesn't want anyone to have any secrets from it. Because it assumes, like you, secret = (possibility of) hidden crime. In fact the NSA can argue, just like you, we uncovered secrets of people, it turned out they were criminals. Hence no one should be allowed to have any secrets. See what's wrong with the picture?

Now, I assume everyone here is mature enough to understand the distinction of things that should be kept secret and which not, and i shouldn't be wasting anyone's time (including mine) into giving an explanation of what matters require secrecy, and in what cases certain secret things should be made public

You have blinded yourself in your understanding of a "secret" to those that have gotten coverage. And of course those secrets have been damaging and damning. Otherwise, the personal risk of exposing them is not worth the reward. And even if it was, the media would find little interest in covering them.

> I do not actually consider a society with any investment in state secrecy to be actually functioning.

Either everyone gets to know the President's credit card number or it's tyranny?

I don't necessarily agree with the thesis of the post you're responding to, but your example is personal privacy on the part of someone who happens to hold office, not a state secret.

Yeah, that was sort of intentional, I'm suggesting that distinction doesn't actually get us very far as it might seem at first glance.

For instance, there's probably a billing account or two assigned to just the office. That wouldn't be personal, but wouldn't be something the state just passes around either.

You could retort that's still not "state secrety" enough. We could then exhaustively try to separate the sheep from the goats, but it's probably just a definitional minefield.

We can probably skip all that and agree on the broader point, though: absolutisms aren't very useful here. They're seductive because of their intellectual purity. But despite our best intentions, we're inevitably going to end up haggling over what's a good secret or bad.

Probably many people will have different opinions on that question that are all prima facie reasonable, but that's ok, just so long as we avoid adopting an all or nothing approach because it seems easier.

The office billing account is a much better example. It is a secret that is legitimately preserved by the state, without there being room for corruption (if we publish the transaction history) that wouldn't be present anyway if the secret were disclosed.