<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too..</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
title=http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%98immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government
href="http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%98immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government">http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%98immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=deborah@accessnow.org
href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org">Deborah Brown</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=ian.peter@ianpeter.com
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">Ian Peter</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bestbits@lists.bestbits.net
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">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-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi Ian,
<DIV> </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-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif">Cass R. Sunstein).</SPAN>
Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter.</DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<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-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<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-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<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>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>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="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>
<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></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT
face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT
face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); 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="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><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); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT
face="garamond, serif"><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT
face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(136,136,136); BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT
face="garamond, serif">PGP
0x5EB4727D</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>