<div dir="ltr">Dear all, <div><br></div><div>There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): </div><div><ul><li>President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed.</li>
<li>The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. </li><ul><li>The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified".</li>
<li>The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known.</li>
</ul></ul><div>Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter (<a href="http://bestbits.net/pclob/">http://bestbits.net/pclob/</a>) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Below is a blog from Access with some more information.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards, </div><div>Deborah </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless">https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless</a><br>
</div><div><h2 style="margin:10px 0px 15px;padding:0px;font-size:24px;line-height:26px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#000000">Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless?</font></span></h2>
<h4 style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-size:14px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/43/Drew%20Mitnick" style="color:rgb(69,69,69);font-weight:normal"><b>Drew Mitnick</b></a></span></h4>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><em style="font-weight:inherit;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-style:inherit">Update:</strong><font color="#333333"> We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at </font><a href="http://www.openthegovernment.org/" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">OpenTheGovernment.org</font></a><font color="#333333"> for this information.</font></em></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">Last week, the </font><a href="http://www.pclob.gov/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board</font></a><font color="#333333"> (PCLOB) released a </font><a href="http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_1.8.14.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">statement</font></a><font color="#333333"> detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel </font><font color="#0000ff"><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none">report</a> </font><font color="#333333">by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that </font><font color="#0000ff"><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none">were lacking</a> </font><font color="#333333">in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><strong style="font-style:inherit;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?</strong></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been </font><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/cautious-optimism-as-us-privacy-oversight-board-finally-confirms-chair" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">underutilized</font></a><font color="#333333"> and </font><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">hamstrung</font></a><font color="#333333">. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, </font><a href="http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sjc-chairman-leahy-hails-confirmation-of-privacy-board-chairman" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">until May of last year</font></a><font color="#333333">. PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a </font><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances</font></a><font color="#333333">. And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has </font><a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/what-powers-does-civil-liberties-oversight-board-have" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">zero enforcement power</font></a><font color="#333333">.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs.</span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><strong style="font-style:inherit;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Will we see a public report on Section 702?</strong></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was </font><font color="#0000ff"><a href="http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_12.18.13.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none">quietly announced</a> </font><font color="#333333">in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the </font><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">weakest parts</font></a><font color="#333333"> of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><strong style="font-style:inherit;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Will Obama even listen?</strong></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th,</font><font color="#0000ff"> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/obama-to-preempt-privacy-board-on-altering-nsa-spying.html" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none">just days before the first PCLOB report drops</a>.</font><font color="#333333"> This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons.</font></span></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><strong style="font-style:inherit;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">What does this mean?</strong></p>
<p style="margin:10px 0px;padding:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#333333">In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and </font><a href="http://www.noticeandcomment.com/PCLOB-2013-0005-0048-fcod-338145.aspx" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="#0000ff">comment</font></a><font color="#333333"> period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change.</font></span></p>
<div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif"><a href="http://rightscon.org" target="_blank">rightscon.org</a></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif"><br></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div></div>
</div></div></div>