<div dir="ltr">Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be diminished. <div>
<br></div><div>Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold)</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this is helpful.</div><div><br></div><div>
All the best, <br></div><div>Deborah </div><div><div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><div><b>Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance</b></div><div>
By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014</div><div><br></div><div>President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, <b>call for privacy safeguards for foreigners</b> and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all so-called national security letters seeking business records.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further. </b>Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will be.</div><div><br></div><div>Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much.</div>
<div><br></div><div>“Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.”</div><div><br></div><div>
The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further Tuesday.</div><div><br></div><div>The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was needed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions without court approval.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.”</div><div><br></div><div>The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their recommendations.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position.</div>
<div><br></div><div>“We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.”</div>
<div><br></div><div>The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one administration official.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data instead.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to store the data.</div>
<div><br></div><div>He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems used by terrorists.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about possible surveillance reforms.</div><div><br></div><div>It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he had consulted other judges.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced bills.”</div><div><br>
</div><div>Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued.</div>
</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target="_blank">joana@varonferraz.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. <br>
Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it?<br>
Best<br>
Joana</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" <<a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" target="_blank">deborah@accessnow.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<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/" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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><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>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" target="_blank"><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"><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" target="_blank"><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><font color="#333333">Last week, the </font><a href="http://www.pclob.gov/" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank">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><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank">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">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><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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>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">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><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank">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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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">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><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank">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">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><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" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><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"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><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"><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">
<font face="garamond, serif"><br></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div></div>
</div></div></div>
<br></div></div>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><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>