<div dir="ltr">Hi all, <div><br></div><div>Here is GNI's statement and recommendations in advance of the speech: <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/surveillance-reforms-protect-rights-and-restore-trust">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/surveillance-reforms-protect-rights-and-restore-trust</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Also of interest may be this piece by Geoff King from CPJ: <a href="http://cpj.org/internet/2014/01/obamas-legacy-on-the-line-with-surveillance-policy.php">http://cpj.org/internet/2014/01/obamas-legacy-on-the-line-with-surveillance-policy.php</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>David</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:51 AM, James S. Tyre <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com" target="_blank">jstyre@jstyre.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Folks may be interested in EFF's scorecard. We'll be grading Obama after his Friday<br>
speech.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
James S. Tyre<br>
Law Offices of James S. Tyre<br>
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512<br>
Culver City, CA 90230-4969<br>
<a href="tel:310-839-4114" value="+13108394114">310-839-4114</a>/<a href="tel:310-839-4602" value="+13108394602">310-839-4602</a>(fax)<br>
<a href="mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com">jstyre@jstyre.com</a><br>
Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a href="https://www.eff.org" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org</a><br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Ian Peter<br>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:34 PM<br>
To: Deborah Brown<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
<div class="im">Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports<br>
<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too..<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9
8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government" target="_blank">http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9<br>
8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Deborah Brown<br>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM<br>
To: Ian Peter<br>
Cc: mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports<br>
<br>
Hi Ian, <br>
<br>
I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from Obama’s review group"<br>
of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge Bates constitutes a<br>
rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he might be. The<br>
NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a dissenting view (by<br>
Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I would add for<br>
the sake of international human rights to your list :)<br>
All the best,<br>
Deborah<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>
Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after<br>
<br>
<a href="http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/" target="_blank">http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/</a><br>
<br>
It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and powerful forces and I<br>
wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage.<br>
<br>
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<br>
strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic performance of US tech<br>
companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much last minute<br>
persuasion as we can muster...<br>
<br>
Ian Peter <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Deborah Brown<br>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM<br>
To: Joana Varon<br>
Cc: mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports<br>
<br>
Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or<br>
the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should<br>
be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a<br>
major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance<br>
may be diminished. <br>
<br>
Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of<br>
"foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold)<br>
<br>
I hope this is helpful.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Deborah<br>
<br>
<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<br>
-surveillance-court.html?hp</a><br>
<br>
Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance<br>
By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014<br>
<br>
President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday<br>
morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen<br>
Crowley/The New York Times<br>
<br>
<br>
WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government<br>
surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and<br>
will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed<br>
on his thinking.<br>
<br>
Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call for privacy<br>
safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent<br>
privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data<br>
in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all<br>
so-called national security letters seeking business records.<br>
<br>
The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted<br>
on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president<br>
trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of<br>
civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be<br>
a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and<br>
keeps the door open to changes later.<br>
<br>
The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or<br>
residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a<br>
180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further.<br>
Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as<br>
recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and<br>
ask lawmakers to weigh in.<br>
<br>
The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a<br>
presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the<br>
disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden,<br>
a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia.<br>
<br>
But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have<br>
been divided about how significant his adjustments will be.<br>
<br>
Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that<br>
will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr.<br>
Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new<br>
guidelines without sacrificing much.<br>
<br>
“Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one<br>
former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.”<br>
<br>
The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further<br>
Tuesday.<br>
<br>
The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a<br>
letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to<br>
express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration<br>
would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court.<br>
<br>
Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,<br>
urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an<br>
independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings.<br>
Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one<br>
was needed.<br>
<br>
Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national<br>
security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records<br>
about communications and financial transactions without court approval.<br>
<br>
And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that<br>
unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.”<br>
<br>
The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional<br>
committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group<br>
testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their<br>
recommendations.<br>
<br>
Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment<br>
of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is<br>
expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position.<br>
<br>
“We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law<br>
School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We<br>
respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the<br>
ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our<br>
tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a<br>
lawyer.”<br>
<br>
The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of<br>
the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a<br>
judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval<br>
in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one<br>
administration official.<br>
<br>
Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the<br>
N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of<br>
people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel<br>
proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down<br>
the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years.<br>
<br>
But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that<br>
telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into<br>
those databases only when necessary.<br>
<br>
Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple<br>
companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data<br>
instead.<br>
<br>
Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do<br>
not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently<br>
exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to<br>
store the data.<br>
<br>
He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers.<br>
Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with<br>
bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to<br>
penetrate computer systems used by terrorists.<br>
<br>
The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about<br>
possible surveillance reforms.<br>
<br>
It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other<br>
two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of<br>
the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a<br>
liaison” and that he had consulted other judges.<br>
<br>
The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court<br>
and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced<br>
bills.”<br>
<br>
Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s<br>
review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of<br>
the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals<br>
courts.<br>
<br>
Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have<br>
called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified<br>
judges,” Judge Bates argued.<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon <<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info.<br>
Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will<br>
bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the<br>
height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it?<br>
Best<br>
Joana<br>
On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" <<a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org">deborah@accessnow.org</a>> wrote:<br>
Dear all, <br>
<br>
There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have<br>
been circulate here yet):<br>
• President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17<br>
January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed.<br>
• The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate<br>
reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. <br>
</div></div>o The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act<br>
<div class="im">and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released<br>
on 23 January and "public and unclassified".<br>
</div>o The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of<br>
classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the<br>
report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the<br>
targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet<br>
known.<br>
Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter <br>
(<a href="http://bestbits.net/pclob/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/pclob/</a>) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging<br>
the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted<br>
under Section 702 meets international human rights standards.<br>
<br>
Below is a blog from Access with some more information.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Deborah<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless?<br>
11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick<br>
Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may<br>
have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org for this<br>
information.<br>
Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a statement<br>
detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The<br>
Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the<br>
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early<br>
February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702,<br>
with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel<br>
report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies,<br>
released in December 2013.<br>
PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost,<br>
will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking in the<br>
Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If<br>
the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s<br>
plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes.<br>
Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?<br>
Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director<br>
of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to<br>
advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has<br>
so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the<br>
Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work marginally increased<br>
after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena<br>
power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural deficits were<br>
resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero<br>
enforcement power.<br>
The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent<br>
report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task<br>
of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27<br>
included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the<br>
name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps,<br>
“clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related<br>
policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate<br>
of FISA programs.<br>
Will we see a public report on Section 702?<br>
The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and<br>
702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of the most recent<br>
statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be<br>
“public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public<br>
release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs<br>
conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and<br>
are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of the President’s<br>
Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under<br>
Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will<br>
be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on<br>
Section 702 programs.<br>
Will Obama even listen?<br>
Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to<br>
indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President<br>
Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January<br>
17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will allow the<br>
administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section<br>
215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on<br>
reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs?<br>
Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech,<br>
these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US<br>
persons.<br>
What does this mean?<br>
In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period this past<br>
autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some<br>
recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the<br>
Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of<br>
others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret<br>
review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of<br>
secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702,<br>
is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost<br>
certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Deborah Brown<br>
Senior Policy Analyst<br>
Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a><br>
<a href="http://rightscon.org" target="_blank">rightscon.org</a><br>
<br>
@deblebrown<br>
PGP 0x5EB4727D<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Deborah Brown<br>
Senior Policy Analyst<br>
Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a><br>
<a href="http://rightscon.org" target="_blank">rightscon.org</a><br>
<br>
@deblebrown<br>
PGP 0x5EB4727D<br>
________________________________________<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Deborah Brown<br>
Senior Policy Analyst<br>
Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a><br>
<a href="http://rightscon.org" target="_blank">rightscon.org</a><br>
<br>
@deblebrown<br>
PGP 0x5EB4727D<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">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><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>David Sullivan<br>Policy and Communications Director<br>
<a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org" target="_blank">Global Network Initiative</a><br>Office: +1 202 741 5048<br>Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 <div>PGP: 0x60D244AA</div><div><a href="https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan" target="_blank">@David_MSullivan</a><br>
<div><font color="#888888"><br></font>GNI has moved, please note our new address:</div></div><div>1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602</div><div>Washington, DC 20036</div><div><br></div>
</div></div>