[Peace-discuss] Informed Comment re Obama's 180 re Serveillance Reforms

Mon Aug 12 02:13:06 UTC 2013

Seems that Obot's bosses held his feet to the fire.

On 08/12/13 8:11, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> We have our own Morsi re campaign promises vs post-election decisions...
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Informed Comment <jricole at gmail.com>
> *To:* jencart13 at yahoo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 11, 2013 3:14 PM
> **
>
>
>   from Informed Comment <http://www.juancole.com/>
>
> 	
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     * Before he Was President, Obama Championed Extensive Surveillance
>       Reforms (Brandeisky) <http://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#3>
>
>
>
> Before he Was President, Obama Championed Extensive Surveillance 
> Reforms (Brandeisky) 
> <http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/juancole/ymbn/%7E3/OaNLiTKJpZI/championed-surveillance-brandeisky.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> 
>
> Posted: 10 Aug 2013 10:58 PM PDT
> / Kara Brandeisky writes at ProPublica /
> When the House of Representatives recently considered an amendment 
> that would have dismantled the NSA’s bulk phone records collection 
> program, the White House swiftly condemned the measure 
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/23/statement-press-secretary-amash-amendment>. 
> But only five years ago, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. was part of a group 
> of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance 
> programs. Here are some of the proposals the president co-sponsored as 
> a senator.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.*
> Obama co-sponsored 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745422-obama-co-sponsor-s-2088.html#document/p2/a112741> 
> a 2007 bill, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have 
> required the government to demonstrate, with “specific and articulable 
> facts 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745218-s-2088-2007.html#document/p34/a112667>,” 
> that it wanted records related to “a suspected agent of a foreign 
> power 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745218-s-2088-2007.html#document/p34/a112668>” 
> or the records of people with one degree of separation from a suspect. 
> The bill died in committee 
> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2088>. Following pressure 
> from the Bush administration, lawmakers had abandoned a similar 2005 
> measure 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/the-sneaky-switch-that-set-the-stage-for-the-nsas-call-records-program/>, 
> which Obama also supported.
> We now know the Obama administration has sought, and obtained, the 
> phone records belonging to all Verizon Business Network Services 
> subscribers 
> <http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order> 
> (and reportedly, Sprint and AT&T subscribers 
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html>, 
> as well). Once the NSA has the database, analysts search through the 
> phone records and look at people with two or three degrees of 
> separation 
> <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-it-analyzes-more-peoples-data-previously-revealed/67287/> 
> from suspected terrorists.
> The measure Obama supported in 2007 is actually similar to the House 
> amendment 
> <http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf> 
> that the White House condemned earlier this month. That measure, 
> introduced by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and John Conyers, D-Mich., 
> would have ended bulk phone records collection but still allowed the 
> NSA to collect records related to individual suspects 
> <http://amash.house.gov/speech/amash-nsa-amendment-fact-sheet> without 
> a warrant based on probable cause.
> The 2007 measure is also similar to current proposals introduced by 
> Conyers <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2399:> and 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1168:>.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get 
> court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.*
> In Feb. 2008, Obama co-sponsored 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745221-senate-amendment-3979-to-fisa-amendments-act.html#document/p1/a112644> 
> an amendment, also introduced by Feingold, which would have further 
> limited the ability of the government to collect any communications to 
> or from people residing in the U.S. 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745221-senate-amendment-3979-to-fisa-amendments-act.html#document/p1/a112641> 
>
> The measure would have also required government analysts to segregate 
> all incidentally collected American communications 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745221-senate-amendment-3979-to-fisa-amendments-act.html#document/p2/a112642>. 
> If analysts wanted to access those communications, they would have 
> needed to apply for individualized surveillance court approval 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745221-senate-amendment-3979-to-fisa-amendments-act.html#document/p2/a112643>.
> The amendment failed 35-63 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3979:>. Obama later 
> reversed his position 
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-giving-i_n_108370.html> 
> and supported what became the law now known to authorize the PRISM 
> program. That legislation — the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 — also 
> granted immunity to telecoms 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=2&> that 
> had cooperated with the government on surveillance.
> The law ensured the government would not need a court order 
> <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R42725.pdf> to collect data from 
> foreigners residing outside the United States. According to the 
> Washington Post, analysts are told that they can compel companies to 
> turn over communications if they are 51 percent certain 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_2.html> 
> the data belongs to foreigners.
> Powerpoint presentation slides published by the Guardian indicate that 
> when analysts use XKeyscore — the software the NSA uses to sift 
> through huge amounts of raw internet data 
> <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data> 
> — they must first justify why they have reason to believe 
> communications are foreign. Analysts can select from rationales 
> available in dropdown menus and then read the communications without 
> court or supervisor approval.
> Finally, analysts do not need court approval to look at 
> previously-collected bulk metadata either, even domestic metadata. 
> Instead, the NSA limits access to incidentally collected American data 
> according to its own “minimization” procedures. A leaked 2009 document 
> said that analysts only needed permission from their “shift 
> coordinators 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/719018-ig-report-2009.html#document/p16/a107520>” 
> to access previously-collected phone records. Rep. Stephen Lynch, 
> D-Mass., has introduced a bill that would require analysts to get 
> special court approval to search through telephone metadata 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2684:>.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress 
> how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.*
> Feingold’s 2008 amendment, which Obama supported, would have also 
> required the Defense Department and Justice Department to complete a 
> joint audit of all incidentally collected American communications 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745221-senate-amendment-3979-to-fisa-amendments-act.html#document/p2/a112649> 
> and provide the report to congressional intelligence committees. The 
> amendment failed 35-63 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3979:>.
> The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community told Senators Ron 
> Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Co. last year that it would be 
> unfeasible to estimate 
> <http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/06/IC-IG-Letter.pdf> how 
> many American communications have been incidentally collected, and 
> doing so would violate Americans’ privacy rights.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related 
> to surveillance court orders.*
> Obama co-sponsored at least two measures that would have made it 
> harder for the government to issue nondisclosure orders to businesses 
> when compelling them to turn over customer data.
> One 2007 bill would have required the government to demonstrate that 
> disclosure could cause one of six specific harms 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745218-s-2088-2007.html#document/p35/a112669>: 
> by either endangering someone, causing someone to avoid prosecution, 
> encouraging the destruction of evidence, intimidating potential 
> witnesses, interfering with diplomatic relations, or threatening 
> national security. It would have also required the government to show 
> that the gag order was “narrowly tailored” to address those specific 
> dangers. Obama also supported a similar measure 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745290-s-737-2005.html#document/p9/a112672> 
> in 2005. Neither measure made it out of committee.
> The Obama administration has thus far prevented companies from 
> disclosing information about surveillance requests. Verizon’s 
> surveillance court order included a gag order 
> <http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order>. 
>
> Meanwhile, Microsoft 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-04-motion.pdf> 
> and Google 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-03-motion.pdf> 
> have filed motions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 
> seeking permission to release aggregate data about directives they’ve 
> received. Microsoft has said the Justice Department and the FBI had 
> previously denied its requests 
> <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/legal/2013/07-16MSLetterToTheAG.pdf> 
> to release more information. The Justice Department has asked for more 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-03-motion-130729.pdf> 
> time 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-04-motion-130729.pdf> 
> to consider lifting the gag orders.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge 
> government surveillance.*
> Obama co-sponsored 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745422-obama-co-sponsor-s-2088.html#document/p2/a112741> 
> a 2007 measure that would have required the government to tell 
> defendants before it used any evidence 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745218-s-2088-2007.html#document/p40/a112670> 
> collected under the controversial section of the Patriot Act. (That 
> section, known as 215 
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861>, has served as the 
> basis for the bulk phone records collection program.) Obama also 
> supported an identical measure 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745290-s-737-2005.html#document/p15/a112671> 
> in 2005.
> Both bills would have ensured that defendants had a chance to 
> challenge the legality 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745290-s-737-2005.html#document/p16/a112674>of 
> Patriot Act surveillance 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745218-s-2088-2007.html#document/p41/a112675>. 
> The Supreme Court has since held that plaintiffs who cannot prove they 
> have been monitored 
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf> cannot 
> challenge NSA surveillance programs.
> Those particular bills did not make it out of committee. But another 
> section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1806> requires that the 
> government tell defendants before it uses evidence collected under 
> that law.
> Until recently, federal prosecutors would not tell defendants 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/double-secret-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all> 
> what kind of surveillance had been used.
> The New York Times reported that in two separate bomb plot 
> prosecutions, the government resisted efforts to reveal whether its 
> surveillance relied on a traditional FISA order, or the 2008 law now 
> known to authorize PRISM. As a result, defense attorneys had been 
> unable to contest the legality of the surveillance. Sen. Dianne 
> Feinstein, D-Calif., later said that in both cases, the government had 
> relied on the 2008 law 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/double-secret-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all>, 
> though prosecutors now dispute that account 
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578638363001746552.html>. 
>
> On July 30, the Justice Department reversed its position in one bomb 
> plot prosecution 
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578638363001746552.html>. 
> The government disclosed that it had not gathered any evidence under 
> the 2008 law now known to authorize sweeping surveillance.
> But that’s not the only case in which the government has refused to 
> detail its surveillance. When San Diego cab driver BasaalySaeedMoalin 
> was charged with providing material support to terrorists based on 
> surveillance evidence in Dec. 2010, his attorney, Joshua Dratel, tried 
> to get the government’s wiretap application to the Foreign 
> Intelligence Surveillance Court 
> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-defense-lawyers/>. The 
> government refused, citing national security.
> Dratel only learned that the government had used Moalin’s phone 
> records as the basis for its wiretap application — collected under 
> Section 215 of the Patriot Act — when FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce 
> cited the Moalin case as a success story 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/defense-lawyer-says-govt-hid-nsa-role-in-california-terrorism-case/> 
> for the bulk phone records collection program.
> Reuters has also reported that a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 
> unit uses evidence from surveillance to investigate Americans 
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805> 
> for drug-related crimes, and then directs DEA agents to “recreate” the 
> investigations to cover up the original tip, so defendants won’t know 
> they’ve been monitored.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted the attorney general to submit a public 
> report giving aggregate data about how many people had been targeted 
> for searches. *
> Under current law, the attorney general gives congressional 
> intelligence committees a semiannual report with aggregate data 
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1871> on how many people 
> have been targeted for surveillance. Obama co-sponsored a 2005 bill 
> that would have made that report public 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745290-s-737-2005.html#document/p77/a112676>. 
> The bill didn’t make it out of committee.
> Despite requests from Microsoft 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-04-motion.pdf> 
> and Google 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/misc-13-03-motion.pdf>, 
> the Justice Department has not yet given companies approval to 
> disclose aggregate data about surveillance directives.
> *As a senator, Obama wanted the government to declassify significant 
> surveillance court opinions.*
> Currently, the attorney general also gives congressional intelligence 
> committees “significant” surveillance court opinions, decisions and 
> orders and summaries of any significant legal interpretations 
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1871>. The 2005 bill that 
> Obama co-sponsored would have released those opinions to the public 
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/745290-s-737-2005.html#document/p77/a112676>, 
> allowing redactions for sensitive national security information.
> Before Edward Snowden’s disclosures, the Obama Justice Department had 
> fought Freedom of Information Act lawsuits 
> <http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/surveillance-suits> seeking 
> surveillance court opinions. On July 31, the Director of National 
> Intelligence released a heavily redacted 
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/157209893/DNI-declassifies-primary-order-regarding-bulk-collection-of-cell-phone-metadata#page=8> 
> version of the FISA court’s “primary order 
> <http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/PrimaryOrder_Collection_215.pdf>” 
> compelling telecoms to turn over metadata.
> In response to a request from Yahoo, the government also says it is 
> going to declassify court documents 
> <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-response-130715.pdf> 
> showing how Yahoo challenged a government directive to turn over user 
> data. The Director of National Intelligence is still reviewing if 
> there are other surveillance court opinions and other significant 
> documents that may be released. Meanwhile, there are several 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2475:>bills 
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1130:> in Congress that 
> would compel the government to release secret surveillance court opinions.
> Follow @karabrandeisky <http://twitter.com/karabrandeisky>
>
> You are subscribed to email updates from Informed Comment 
> <http://www.juancole.com/>
> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now 
> <http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=eqp5_RY4hTBVO9EXyR6_zbuIp0I>. 
> 	Email delivery powered by Google
> Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130812/810753d1/attachment-0001.html>