Six points on the President's NSA speech

[Ichingcarpenter]

keep in mind how the status quo has, or has not, been altered:

1) The phone metadata still exists.

2) It will be kept, at least in the short-term, by the government until Congress figures out what to do with it. (And don't think the telecom lobby won't play a role in that.)

3) It will be searched.

4) Searches will be approved by a court with a record of being friendly to the government, one without a new privacy advocate.

5) National security letters can still be issued by the FBI without a court order.

6) Much of this activity will remain secret.

The president made two major policy prescriptions. First, he called for the data to be housed somewhere other than within the government. Second, he said before the NSA can search the calling-record database, it should obtain judicial approval.

To the first, the president would not specify where the data will be ultimately stored. He wants the Justice Department and the intelligence community to come up with a proposal within 60 days. The administration is reluctant to force telecom providers to house the data, both because of logistical problems and because the industry wants nothing to do with it. Some have suggested creating a private consortium, but that will take time. And if it proves that there is no better place to keep the data, it well could remain with the U.S. government. (Sounds a little like GITMO.)

To the second of Obama's measures, judicial oversight will come in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which critics say acts as a rubber stamp for government surveillance requests, rather than by more independent-minded federal judges on other courts. The Wall Street Journal last year estimated the Court rejects less than 1 percent of all requests; the chief judge has maintained that it sends back up to 25 percent. Either way, the overwhelming majority of requests are granted unimpeded, particularly when the requests are time-sensitive.

Tellingly, the president rejected a recommendation from an outside panel to establish a "public advocate" inside the Court to represent privacy interests. Instead, he wants an outside group of experts to consult on cutting-edge legal matters, not on day-to-day surveillance requests.

Yes, the FISA review adds an extra step to the process (one that may frustrate counterterror hawks), but it likely will do little to restrain the NSA. (The president is taking one concrete step, limiting searches to two "hops" away from a subject's phone number, not three.)


http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-s-nsa-proposals-fall-far-short-of-real-change-20140117

[questionseverything]

1. adding to the list

he did not touch on the nsa to dea,irs,fbi info train or the illegal parallel construction that is taking place...which denies the right to a fair trial

he repeated the "no content" misinfo....we know from le that,"there is a way to get content" and just yesterday info came out that text messages are vacuumed up,that's content

most disturbing he continued the moving dot of legality....from probable cause to reasonable suspion

[roguevalley]

10. he gave a pretty speech. He touched on MLK. That MLK would plotz

over this program seems to make it a sick insertion into the speech. IMHO. Nothing has really changed at all. He had to say something and he did. Lots of nice words signifying nothing.

[ProSense]

2. Here's a

good chart: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347726

[hlthe2b]

6. the chart shows how little the President has actually addressed (and even less committed to)

The ACLU is absolutely right to call him on this, which appears to be little more than window dressing.

President Obama is not responsible for the magnitude and extent of overreach that is today's NSA, but it falls to him to reign it in. I see little that he has addressed to date. I surely hope that changes.

[Egnever]

3. Just curious

what level of rejection of warrant requests by the FISA court would make it legit?

Seems like a warrant request should be based on a serious need for information. Why should there be frivolous requests being made that deserve to be struck down?

I dont think any conclusions can be drawn based on the amount of requests denied. One would need to look at the requests that were approved to get any real idea of if the court is providing correct oversight or not.

Making a judgment based on percentage of requests denied is very simplistic thinking in my opinion.

[Wilms]

4. Good point. However...

From the OP:

Tellingly, the president rejected a recommendation from an outside panel to establish a "public advocate" inside the Court to represent privacy interests.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. The MetaData to a private company?

.......LOL and then let
Congress decide what company?

Imagine someone like Target.

[Wilms]

7. or Amazon.

[Blanks]

8. The fourth amendment protects citizens from the government...

If private companies are gathering metadata - that is not a violation of the fourth amendment. If the government steps in and violates the telecom's rights by telling them what they can do - there will be people screaming for the president's head.

It's a fine line to walk. It seems to me that telling the NSA and the telecoms that they can't store metadata in government facilities - that statement satisfies the fourth amendment's restriction on the government without telling the telecoms how they can handle their 'property'.

This got out of control under the Bush administration. It's a difficult issue to resolve when you consider that a single terrorist attack would be blamed on the president's 'weak on terror' policy if he undoes the damages to our freedoms.

It's a tough task that he is faced with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The ACLU says:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/tech/web/response-obama-nsa-speech/

Anthony D. Romero, executive director, American Civil Liberties Union

"The president's speech outlined several developments which we welcome. Increased transparency for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, improved checks and balances at the FISA court through the creation of a panel of advocates, and increased privacy protections for non-U.S. citizens abroad -- the first such assertion by a U.S. president -- are all necessary and welcome reforms.

"However, the president's decision not to end bulk collection and retention of all Americans' data remains highly troubling. The president outlined a process to study the issue further and appears open to alternatives. But the president should end -- not mend -- the government's collection and retention of all law-abiding Americans' data."

[kentuck]

11. Stored someplace else??

Are they about finished with the new building out in Utah?

[jazzimov]

12. Oh, for Chrissakes!

1) The phone metadata still exists.
Well, yes, as long as we make phone calls, send text messages, or do anything that has to do with modern communication. Unless we decide to go back to the old method of actually talking face to face.

2) It will be kept, at least in the short-term, by the government until Congress figures out what to do with it. (And don't think the telecom lobby won't play a role in that.)
The people we elect. Doesn't this scream GOTV Election 2014?

3) It will be searched.
Well, of course, SOME of it will, but not all. But there are severe restrictions on WHAT can be searched. This is what we should be talking about despite the "hair on fire" posts on the NSA.

4) Searches will be approved by a court with a record of being friendly to the government, one without a new privacy advocate.
Oh, the Spin! That is the current law, but the WH advocates using a Privacy Advocate. This, of course, is up to the Congress to implement.

5) National security letters can still be issued by the FBI without a court order.
Please read up on NSL's. Google is your friend!

6) Much of this activity will remain secret.
Yes, so that the organizations that the NSA is trying to target don't know HOW they are being targeted - or else it's all moot.