
White House denies intel chief will lead NSA surveillance review - czr80
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316879-white-house-denies-intel-chief-will-lead-nsa-review
======
toyg
Forcing committee members to go through Clapper to get actual data is a farce.

"Mhh, so you want to examine all our internet-related projects, right? Let me
check... <clickety clack> I'm sorry, we don't really keep a list of links or
anything... PRISM? Ah, that's a bitch, docs are all over the place, the only
one who knows how to get anything is <random clerk who'll start a two-year
sabbatical tomorrow>. XKEYSCORE? That's even worse! The project manager left
two weeks ago and we can't find the key to his drawer. This place is mad, I
tell you! Maybe you could start with this <completely irrelevant and
minuscule> project I've found here? There's full specs, meeting memos,
everything, about 13436 pages... just let me know once you're done with it,
I'm sure I can find you a lot of juicy stuff!"

( _This looks more and more like a classic case of "let's bury the whole thing
by instituting a committee that will take years and produce a pointless report
nobody will ever read"_)

~~~
stfu
Your thinking is way too complicated. The argument is much simpler!

PRISM? Oh, nobody knows around here anymore how that thing works. Haven't you
read that 90% of the administrators were let go? [1] Request? Well, this might
take a while...

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nsa-cut-system-
administrat...](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nsa-cut-system-
administrators-90-percent-limit-data-access-6C10884390)

------
malandrew

        Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel for the 
        American Civil Liberties Union, said she believes the
        review group can produce meaningful results if it includes 
        privacy advocates, academics and other people who are
        independent from the surveillance agencies.
    

Unfortunately not going to happen...

    
    
        "The members will have access to classified information so 
        they need to be administratively attached to a government 
        element but the review process and findings will be their 
        own," Turner said. 
    
    

Something as serious as this needs an adversarial process. Drawing from only
people "administratively attached to a government element" guarantees that
won't happen. Is there any area of the government whose sole role is
protecting the rights of the people against the government? I know that the
courts are supposed to provide this oversight when they declare something
unconstitutional, but the courts hear from advocates who are not
"administratively attached"

Personally, I would like to see a process whereby several groups independently
come up with their own conclusions and publish those independent opinions
separately before synthesizing one report. With only one report published, we
can be certain that it will be whitewashed, diluted and redacted. At the very
least if there is a report, they should include the notion of publishing a
"dissenting opinion" like the courts do.

~~~
mpyne
Do you have any clue what "administratively attached to a government element"
means? It sounds like you don't.

The issue is that a security clearance for access to given information
requires three things:

1\. A screening (eligibility for a security clearance). This can be done
outside of government. 2\. Need to know. Our 'review group' will certainly
have that. 3\. Permission of the unit Director/CO/OIC. _This_ is why people
might need to be "administratively attached" to a unit. It's one of those
stereotypical "Catch-22" situations.

If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how
can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't.

By attaching them to a unit 'administratively' they simply declare which unit
Director/CO/OIC is going to get their head put on the chopping block if one of
those privacy groups leaks classified information.

Now there are reasons to be afraid of government involvements in groups. The
easy thing is financial interest, so we just need to make sure the reviewers
from the NGOs volunteer or are paid from outside the government.

Another concern is performance evaluation. You wouldn't want the person
"signing the FITREP" to be the person with an existing interest in the outcome
of the decision one way or the other. But I don't see that here.

Either way the report hasn't even been published yet, so how can you possibly
know that it must be whitewashed? At least wait for the damn thing to be
published before you unleash the attacks you undoubtedly already have queued
up. :P

~~~
Helianthus
>If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how
can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't.

This is bureaucratic legerdemain that falls within the purview of the original
criticism: given the leash, bureaucracy will exonerate bureaucracy.

~~~
mpyne
It's no more or less stupid than recording the name of an person where the
name is unknown as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe". If you're here to tell me that
admin is surreal then, hey, I agree with you. But _this here_ is as innocuous
as bureaucracy can possibly get.

------
dmix
> "The members will have access to classified information so they need to be
> administratively attached to a government element but the review process and
> findings will be their own," Turner said.

Annnd we see how we got here in the first place.

How can a representative government be representative when vast portions of it
are protected with total secrecy? ...with artificial attempts at transparency?

~~~
GuiA
In practice, the US government is hardly a representative one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators)

------
grandalf
_" They'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can
make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance
technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy —
particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public,"
Obama said._

This quote illustrates the problem. Overturning the 4th amendment requires a
congressional super-majority, not the assurance of a politician who has
already violated the public's trust.

------
nickff
Is the public expected to believe that a panel hand-picked by someone deeply
involved with surveillance, and appointed by the administration will conclude
that the investigators' benefactors were guilty of anything?

~~~
uptown
Based on what President Obama said during his news conference, he's seeking to
make the Americans "more comfortable" with the NSA program - not overhaul,
stop, or find-guilty.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/obama-aims-to-
build...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-11/obama-aims-to-build-public-
support-for-nsa-programs-hayden-says.html)

------
beedogs
This is like how the US lets the police investigate police misconduct.
Absolute joke.

------
GauntletWizard
Clapper having any say into the matter is unacceptable; Have they not heard of
independent third parties?

Here's a conspiracy theory: Clapper will sit in the panel, come up with
perfectly valid reasons to veto anyone his thugs do not have dirt on, and will
proceed to blackmail his agency's way into being completely unchecked.
Corruption is not rooted out by the corrupt; It is rooted out by having third
parties check everything until well after the corruption is gone, to give the
latent seeds no chance to take root.

------
stretchwithme
Put Snowden's dad and Swartz's dad on the review board.

~~~
Helianthus
I'm going to do what might seem like a 180 on my previous stance in this
topic; neither would have the bureaucratic/administrative expertise necessary
to _craft_ policy even if their input might be invaluable in _directing_ that
craft.

Figureheads on committee make for limp politics.

~~~
stretchwithme
What I was going for was not a figurehead, but people who are outside the
establishment and who have an interest in forging a better policy.

------
e3pi
"...Republican congressman Justin Amash, who led a revolt that narrowly failed
in its effort to cut NSA funding, tweeted:

"Pres Obama believes man who lied to public in congressional hearing about NSA
should lead NSA review process meant to build public trust".

Can anyone wrap their head around that the `Pres' is this oblivious to both DC
and public opinion?

------
gsibble
Could someone rectify the apparent contradictions between yesterday's memo and
today's announcement? Was it misread or something? How could they do an about
face so quickly?

------
stretchwithme
I'm sure it will be some other puppet on a string.

