Pretty Words

“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. When the government collects and stores every American’s phone call data, it is engaging in a textbook example of an ‘unreasonable search’ that violates the Constitution. The president’s own review panel recommended that bulk data collection be ended, and the president should accept that recommendation in its entirety.”

A new chart comparing the ACLU’s proposals, President Obama’s announcement, and the USA FREEDOM Act (a bipartisan bill currently pending in Congress) is at: aclu.org/national-security/where-does-president-stand-nsa-reform ACLU Action is demanding an end to dragnet surveillance at: aclu.org/endsurveillance

  ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero

“Anytime you assemble a massive database of sensitive information, you make everyone less secure,” Alex Abdo, an attorney with the ACLU, argues. “We are fundamentally less secure when we have our sensitive information aggregated, whether by government or by companies forced to keep it for the government. Until further notice, bulk surveillance is in place.”

The basic situation is this: Obama did not back away from the core principle that this bulk collection is necessary to keep Americans safe. As he put it, the goal will be to “establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.” The key word there being “preserve.”

[...]

For Obama, the debate should be about how to collect this metadata in a way that maximizes public confidence that privacy rights are protected. For civil libertarians, the debate should be over whether to collect that metadata at all — the bulk collection itself is an abuse, one that is not central to keeping the nation safe, despite Obama’s protestation otherwise.

[...]

He outlined a number of reforms that will increase transparency into collection of metadata and the legal rationale for it. He called for the creation of a panel of outsiders that will represent the public before the FISA court, meaning that it won’t be hearing only the government’s arguments.

  WaPo

And that is indeed a step above the situation as it has existed where only the government’s representatives could argue at the court. But we can expect the people on that panel to be appointed, not elected. “Outsiders” remains to be seen – how far outside and with what connections?

He said a court order will now be required before the government can get access to that data.

How nice for the government. The fact that the data is collected and stored by anyone leaves the situation exactly as is. It is private, unwarranted data that is stored somewhere giving access to people who have no business having it. Not to mention…how hard is it for the government to get a court order?

Obama repeatedly said that the public’s confidence that their privacy is being safeguarded is a paramount goal.

And that is the bottom line and the reason for any action at all. The public has lost confidence. Restore the public’s confidence, and you can do what you want.

ProPublica refutes four of Obama’s assurances to the public:
1. There have been no abuses.
2. At least 50 terrorist threats have been averted.
3. The NSA does not do any domestic spying.
4. Snowden failed to take advantage of whistleblower protections.

All wrong. So why would you believe him now?