[bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports

Emma Llanso ellanso at cdt.org
Fri Jan 17 12:13:54 EST 2014


And a few more links related to today's speech (which just concluded):

Text of the speech: 
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/text-of-the-presidents-remarks-on-nsa-and-surveillance/

"Fact sheet" from the White House summarizing the President's review and 
planned/proposed reforms: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EREkBVf9I5HQEkjRASDPkgIPOZ38lBKpEr8xh4sV9LY/preview?sle=true&pli=1

The Presidential Policy Directive that will implement some of the 
reforms: 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006318/2014sigint-mem-ppd-rel.pdf

Best,
Emma

-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Director, Free Expression Project
Center for Democracy & Technology
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
@ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>

On 1/17/14, 10:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Here is a link for the livestreaming of Obama's speech for those 
> interested:
>
> _http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-signals-intelligence-programs_
>
> Starting in a few minutes.
>
> Embargoed copy attached.
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Eddan Katz <eddank at aya.yale.edu 
> <mailto:eddank at aya.yale.edu>> wrote:
>
>     And at the intersection of global and local, the Oakland Privacy
>     Working Group is setting its sights on shutting down funding for
>     the Domain Awareness Centers and their Fusion Centers. We're in
>     the finally month of opposition and think we have a chance
>     to severely cut this off in Oakland City Council in an upcoming
>     Public Safety Committee vote.
>
>     Here's our petition:
>     https://www.change.org/petitions/the-mayor-and-city-council-of-oakland-ca-don-t-sell-out-the-people-of-oakland-to-the-department-of-homeland-security-don-t-vote-to-fund-the-domain-awareness-center
>
>
>     We're hoping that some attention from digital rights networks will
>     be decisive in swaying the key votes. We are trying to get as many
>     signatures as possible in the very short term so that this story
>     can reach its tipping point and ride on the heels of the
>     announcements from the Executive Branch tomorrow. We are also
>     paying close attention to the potential impact of the CA Senate
>     Bill 828 4th Amendment Protection Act enabling legal cover for
>     non-cooperation with the NSA
>     (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-california-state-legislation-seeks-to-thwart-nsa-spying/).
>
>
>     sent from eddan.com <http://eddan.com>
>
>     On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Eddan Katz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>     From: *Deborah Brown* <deborah at accessnow.org
>>     <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>>
>>     Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM
>>     Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports
>>     To: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>"
>>     <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of
>>     interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet):
>>
>>       * 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.
>>       * The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be
>>         issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially
>>         anticipated.
>>           o 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".
>>           o 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.
>>
>>     Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network
>>     endorsed a letter  (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) 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.
>>
>>     Below is a blog from Access with some more information.
>>
>>     Kind regards,
>>     Deborah
>>
>>
>>
>>     https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless
>>
>>
>>         Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless?
>>
>>
>>             11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick*
>>             <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/43/Drew%20Mitnick>
>>
>>     /*Update:* 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 OpenTheGovernment.org
>>     <http://www.openthegovernment.org/> for this information./
>>
>>     Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
>>     <http://www.pclob.gov/> (PCLOB) released a statement
>>     <http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_1.8.14.pdf> 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 report
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth>
>>     by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and
>>     Communications Technologies, released in December 2013.
>>
>>     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 were lacking
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth>
>>     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.
>>
>>     *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?*
>>
>>     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 underutilized
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/cautious-optimism-as-us-privacy-oversight-board-finally-confirms-chair> and
>>     hamstrung
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed>.
>>     The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only
>>     full-time position, until May of last year
>>     <http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sjc-chairman-leahy-hails-confirmation-of-privacy-board-chairman>.
>>     PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations,
>>     but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena
>>     power, and requisite security clearances
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed>.
>>     And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a
>>     fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the
>>     PCLOB has zero enforcement power
>>     <https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/what-powers-does-civil-liberties-oversight-board-have>
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     *Will we see a public report on Section 702?*
>>
>>     The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the
>>     reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced
>>     <http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_12.18.13.pdf>
>>     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 weakest parts
>>     <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth> 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.
>>
>>     *Will Obama even listen?*
>>
>>     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,just days before the first PCLOB report
>>     drops
>>     <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/obama-to-preempt-privacy-board-on-altering-nsa-spying.html>.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.
>>
>>     *What does this mean?*
>>
>>     In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and
>>     comment
>>     <http://www.noticeandcomment.com/PCLOB-2013-0005-0048-fcod-338145.aspx> 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.
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Deborah Brown
>>     Senior Policy Analyst
>>     Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
>>     rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>>
>>     @deblebrown
>>     PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>     Attachments:
>>     - message-footer.txt
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
> rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140117/964d12bf/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list