<div dir="ltr">Hi Ian, <div><br></div><div>I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from Obama’s review group" of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge Bates constitutes a rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he might be. The NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a dissenting view (by <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Cass R. Sunstein).</span> Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I would add for the sake of international human rights to your list :)</div><div>All the best, <br>Deborah </div>
<div><br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<div>Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a title="http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/" href="http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/" target="_blank">http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and powerful
forces and I wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I just went to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov" target="_blank">www.whitehouse.gov</a>
and submitted a few comments urging the President to be strong – for the sake of
US standing in the world, the economic performance of US tech companies, and the
citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much last minute persuasion as
we can muster...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ian Peter </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:small;display:inline;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';font-weight:normal">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="deborah@accessnow.org" href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" target="_blank">Deborah Brown</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="joana@varonferraz.com" href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target="_blank">Joana Varon</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB
reports</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:small;display:inline;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';font-weight:normal"><div><div class="h5">
<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> </div>
<div>Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights
of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope this is helpful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All the best, <br></div>
<div>Deborah </div>
<div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp</a><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><b>Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance</b></div>
<div>By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014</div>
<div> </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> </div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </div>
<div>The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not
comment further Tuesday.</div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </div>
<div>The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific
comments about possible surveillance reforms.</div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </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="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">
<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>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="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div> </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.
<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></li></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> </div>
<div>Below is a blog from Access with some more information.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind regards, </div>
<div>Deborah </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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="FONT-SIZE:24px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px 15px;LINE-HEIGHT:26px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><span><font color="#000000">Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified?
Toothless?</font></span></h2>
<h4 style="FONT-SIZE:14px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><span>11:56am
| 14 January 2014 | by <a style="FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:rgb(69,69,69)" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/43/Drew%20Mitnick" target="_blank"><b>Drew Mitnick</b></a></span></h4>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><em><strong style="COLOR:rgb(51,51,51)">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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.openthegovernment.org/" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">OpenTheGovernment.org</font></a><font color="#333333"> for this information.</font></em></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><span><font color="#333333">Last week, the </font><a style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.pclob.gov/" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board</font></a><font color="#333333"> (PCLOB)
released a </font><a style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_1.8.14.pdf" 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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" 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="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" 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="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><strong>Will
the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?</strong></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/cautious-optimism-as-us-privacy-oversight-board-finally-confirms-chair" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">underutilized</font></a><font color="#333333"> and </font><a style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed" 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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sjc-chairman-leahy-hails-confirmation-of-privacy-board-chairman" 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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed" 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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/what-powers-does-civil-liberties-oversight-board-have" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">zero enforcement power</font></a><font color="#333333">.</font></span></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><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="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><strong>Will
we see a public report on Section 702?</strong></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_12.18.13.pdf" 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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth" 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="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><strong>Will
Obama even listen?</strong></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><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 style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/obama-to-preempt-privacy-board-on-altering-nsa-spying.html" 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="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;COLOR:rgb(51,51,51);PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><strong>What
does this mean?</strong></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE:12px;FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;MARGIN:10px 0px;LINE-HEIGHT:18px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px"><span><font color="#333333">In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and
</font><a style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://www.noticeandcomment.com/PCLOB-2013-0005-0048-fcod-338145.aspx" 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> </div>-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif">Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a></font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif"><a href="http://rightscon.org" target="_blank">rightscon.org</a></font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif"><br></font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:13px;COLOR:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div></div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></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> </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><p>
</p><hr><div class="im">
____________________________________________________________<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></div><p></p></div></div></div></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>