Obama announces NSA reforms; campaigners say pretty cool but nothing to jizz about
31 replies, posted
[t]http://imgkk.com/i/2rkg.jpg[/t]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-reforms-end-storage-americans-call-data[/url]
[quote]In the key points of his speech, Obama said:
• The government will no longer store the phone call information of millions of Americans. But he did not say who should maintain the information, instead giving the intelligence community 60 days to come up with options.
• Intelligence agencies must, with immediate effect, apply to the secret Fisa court for judicial approval to access Americans' phone records.
• The secret Fisa court should be reformed to include a panel of independent advocates to provide a voice in "significant cases".
• The NSA will not spy on the heads of state and governments of allies, and said some further protections would be given to foreign citizens whose communications were caught up in the agency's dragnet.
• The US government had to be held to a "higher standard" than private corporations that store user data or foreign governments that undertake their own surveillance.[/quote]
[url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/obama-takes-first-steps-toward-reforming-nsa-surveillance-leaves-many-issues]EFF's response[/url]:
[quote]"The President took several steps toward reforming NSA surveillance, but there's still a long way to go," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Now it's up to the courts, Congress, and the public to ensure that real reform happens, including stopping all bulk surveillance--not just telephone records collection. Other necessary reforms include requiring prior judicial review of national security letters and ensuring the security and encryption of our digital tools, but the President's speech made no mention of these. We're hopeful that the big data and privacy review commissioned by John Podesta will address these issues and the further steps outlined in our scorecard. We also look forward to addressing the underlying constitutional problems with the surveillance in our ongoing lawsuits: Jewel v. NSA and First Unitarian Church v. NSA."
"It was encouraging to see the President recognize the privacy rights of people around the world," said International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez. "However, the details of Obama's plans to actually protect those privacy rights must conform with international human rights law, specifically that suspicion is necessary to target non-US person for surveillance."[/quote]
Amnesty's response (from [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25785573]BBC[/url])
[quote]"President Obama's surveillance adjustments will be remembered as music on the Titanic unless his administration adopts deeper reforms," said Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
"Shifting the storage of information does not address the fundamental problem: the collection of mass personal data in the first place," he said in a statement.[/quote]
Why do I feel this is just a terrible attempt at pacifying people?
Looks like the US government unlocked the Dead Ringer spy watch
I didn't realise that recorded phone data is just metadata.
Phew, good thing he's lying, for a second I thought we'd need to find something else to make angry zingers about.
[QUOTE=Irockz;43571942]Why do I feel this is just a terrible attempt at pacifying people?[/QUOTE]
Because it is.
Well first of all they need to let Santa go.
[video=youtube;3A_VT9YGA10]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_VT9YGA10[/video]
Well, let's this order doesn't get the funding blocked, like the Guantanamo order did.
They fucked up by letting their secret court become un-secret.
This is basic politics in any country; Hide your dirty laundry.
Fucking noobs.
[QUOTE=Irockz;43571942]Why do I feel this is just a terrible attempt at pacifying people?[/QUOTE]
It's not a terrible attempt because it'll work
[QUOTE=Sadim;43571970]I didn't realise that recorded phone data is just metadata.[/QUOTE]
it always was
people were just going "OH FUCK OH FUCK NSA RECORDIN OUR PHONE CALLS"
and never actually looked at what they were recording. you can find all of the info they've taken on your phone bill
So, no fixing all those backdoors into Facebook, Google, and other social networking sites they can access without a warrant or probable cause? No fixing the logging of every packet sent over the Internet?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43572422]it always was
people were just going "OH FUCK OH FUCK NSA RECORDIN OUR PHONE CALLS"
and never actually looked at what they were recording. you can find all of the info they've taken on your phone bill[/QUOTE]
There's reason to believe that the content of phone calls and various forms of online and cellular messaging are recorded.
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/[/url]
[QUOTE=Groat;43574271]There's reason to believe that the content of phone calls and various forms of online and cellular messaging are recorded.
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/[/url][/QUOTE]
Wiretapping is not the same as dragnet collection, which is what all the hubbub has been about, but people keep talking like the two are one and the same and the NSA is listening to every phone call and reading every email, regardless of the amount of contrary information.
Anyways, I'm surprised nobody has commented on the inclusion of independent advocates in the FISA court. Even if you think Obama is lying through his teeth, the presence of 'outsiders' at least ensures that they'll play by the rules in court and is a pretty significant change considering how easily they could say it isn't feasible due to security concerns.
[QUOTE=The golden;43571935]Aaaaand they'll continue to do all of those things anyway.[/QUOTE]
Well, by that logic no reform is good enough. No matter what is said or put forward they'll do the same thing anyway, so why even try? Better to try and fail than do nothing at all, I'd say.
Until drastic budget cuts get announced, I don't believe much will change anyway.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43572422]it always was
people were just going "OH FUCK OH FUCK NSA RECORDIN OUR PHONE CALLS"
and never actually looked at what they were recording. you can find all of the info they've taken on your phone bill[/QUOTE]
what's on my phone bill is between me and my phone provider. it's not anybody else's business.
[QUOTE=Egonny;43574561]Until drastic budget cuts get announced, I don't believe much will change anyway.[/QUOTE]
They'll cut the funding and transfer it to a new agency under the radar.
As expected, he sided pretty strongly with the intelligence community. At this point, I'm starting to wonder who is running who. Obama is clearly in the thrall of the national security and intelligence complex, and doesn't give two shits about civil liberties.
[QUOTE=Egonny;43574561]Until drastic budget cuts get announced, I don't believe much will change anyway.[/QUOTE]
NSA's budget is classified so they wouldn't announce cuts if they did happen
[QUOTE=tirpider;43572090]They fucked up by letting their secret court become un-secret.
This is basic politics in any country; Hide your dirty laundry.
Fucking noobs.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe don't get your laundry dirty in the first place?
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;43576410]Or maybe don't get your laundry dirty in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Any security agency would be remiss if they weren't trying to spy on everyone. Their mistake was not being good enough at covering their tracks.
[QUOTE=Egonny;43574561]Until drastic budget cuts get announced, I don't believe much will change anyway.[/QUOTE]
They'll just funnel what few measly dollars NASA is getting to the NSA if that happens.
Oh Obama you bullshit artist.
[QUOTE=Sadim;43571970]I didn't realise that recorded phone data is just metadata.[/QUOTE]
The problem is "metadata" is literally just "data about data". They aren't recording the contents of your calls, but they are recording who you call, when you call them, where you call them from, how long you talk to them, etc.
Excuses like "Oh it's on your bill so who cares" are missing the point. You enter into an agreement with your phone company and the person you're calling, you expect them to know that data, the NSA are a 3rd party that you don't have an agreement with.
[QUOTE=tirpider;43576554]Any security agency would be remiss if they weren't trying to spy on everyone. Their mistake was not being good enough at covering their tracks. [/QUOTE]
Er, no, that's not true. Normally I'm the one taking the realistic point of view, but every agency does have its limitations, for two big reasons. Firstly, civil liberties are a big deal in this country. If you read into the NSA documents, it's clear that they thought they were taking adequate steps to render data anonymous, and most of the foreign collection programs automatically sort and remove data from Americans. They're required by law to safeguard data on their own people and they certainly have neither the legal right nor the authority to collect information on everybody.
Second, scope. The NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, NRO, DOE/OIC, DHS/IA, DS/IR, DEA, DT/OIA, NGA, and the intelligence branches of the Air Force, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps all have roles in intelligence-gathering. Without clearly-defined areas of responsibility, not only would they be stepping all over each other's dicks in the course of their duties, but they wouldn't have the specialization needed to accomplish the mission in their respective fields. NSA is NOT supposed to be pursuing terrorism on American soil in most situations, that's the FBI's job. And more importantly, they can't be collecting information just for the sake of having information. Every intelligence operation needs to justify its cost to policymakers (ie Congress), and mass collection and storage with no clear use or justification is not worth the price.
The fact is, NSA was not doing their job, and some of their operations (like the one targeting Google's cloud servers) were clearly outside the scope of both their authority and mission.
As for covering tracks, the only one to consistently hide information from the authorities in charge of oversight is DNI Clapper, and many people in the intelligence community are calling for his resignation over his lying when pressed about NSA's activities. Many of the Congressmen complaining about not being informed are ones who, by their own admission, regularly skipped intelligence briefings because they had better things to do.
The point is that intelligence agencies are no more inherently evil than any other part of government, they just wield more power and consequently require more oversight. You may be skeptical of the president's promises, but there will undoubtedly be changes made both to practice and to policy as a result.
[editline]18th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;43578497]You enter into an agreement with your phone company and the person you're calling, you expect them to know that data, the NSA are a 3rd party that you don't have an agreement with.[/QUOTE]
Look up 'pen register' and 'third-party doctrine', especially in relation to Smith v Maryland, 1979.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43578676]...[/QUOTE]
Right on. I see your point. Different guys have different jobs. I said the word 'any' and so... yeah.
All I was trying to imply was that they failed at performing their duties in a manner adequate enough to prevent a scandal that required mop-up action by the White House. Probably could have worded it better, but I didn't.
That may sound like I don't care if they stomp on our rights or not, but I am not even addressing that in any of my comments. Just the incompetence of the person(s) who's job it was to do it right.
We (common everyday folks, not Congressmen or aides or whatever) are hearing about it, so someone fucked up.
As for any of them being evil, I reserve the right to determine good and bad according to my own values. I'll try not to take over the world with my paranoia :/
(I really don't care what data they have on anyone. It isn't as though I have any say in whether it gets collected or not.)
[QUOTE=catbarf;43578676]...
Look up 'pen register' and 'third-party doctrine', especially in relation to Smith v Maryland, 1979.[/QUOTE]
Well for starters the law has been changed since the ruling you quote to require a court order to apply a "pen register", same rules also apply to the "third party doctrine" as well.
Yes, there are laws in place to allow the government to legally spy on certain people, the issue people have is with the government spying on [b]everybody[/b] they can.
Id love to believe this, but deep down I know its all Political posturing.
[QUOTE=Megafan;43574439]Well, by that logic no reform is good enough. No matter what is said or put forward they'll do the same thing anyway, so why even try? Better to try and fail than do nothing at all, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
thanks for this bone obama it's so nice I love when you throw me scraps from the table thank you king.
Obama is either in on all this stuff or he's incompetent for not knowing about it. Probably the former.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.