
Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection - samdk
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/obama-to-seek-nsa-curb-on-call-data.html
======
intslack
Note that there are two proposals here, much like good cop (Obama
Administration) and bad cop (House Intelligence Committee[1]), but both leave
broader §215 authority intact i.e. business records not to mention §702 and
Upstream collection.

Both also seem to be attempting to reinstate the full Telephony Activity
Detection Process which they haven't been able to do legally since 2009[2][3]
due to alert abuses[4].

[1]
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230394970...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303949704579459823138066260)

[2] [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/the-
na...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/the-national-
security-agencys-oversharing-problem/2/)

[3] [http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/03/24/nsa-bids-to-expand-
spyi...](http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/03/24/nsa-bids-to-expand-spying-in-
guise-of-fixing-phone-dragnet/)

[4] [http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/01/23/how-nsa-spies-on-
first-...](http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/01/23/how-nsa-spies-on-first-
amendment-protected-speech-the-eo-12333-loophole/)

------
aryastark
_call_ records? Are you shitting me? The White House is acting like Grandpa
trying to wrap his mind around the concept of the Internet. "overhaul", "new
kind of court order". Yeah, okay.

Here's the broom, Obama. Need a little help sweeping it all under the rug?

~~~
gone35
This. I've noticed how the government and most established/traditional media
outlets keep referring to the NSA phone metadata stuff as if that were the
only disclosed program worthy of review. But what about Prism, etc?

~~~
alexqgb
Etc.? More like etc. etc. etc. etc. And as the folks working with Greenwald
have noted, there's plenty more to come. The easier to digest stuff is what's
appeared to date. The more complex programs - i.e. the ones that take more
time to fully grasp - are what they're still working through.

------
Pxtl
You ever notice how President Obama acts like he's nt in charge of the
government? The whole "outsider" schtick doesn't really work 6 years into your
Presidency.

~~~
beedogs
That's probably because he isn't really in charge of it. But he makes a better
figurehead than the last bozo I guess.

~~~
mantrax3
We need leaders, not figureheads.

~~~
jbooth
Sounds great, you should run for the job. I'm sure if we just elected someone
who was leader-y enough, they'd be able to turn that ship on a dime.

~~~
ISL
A true captain can stop a ship if it's heading into rough waters, even if he
can't turn it around. A single executive order could cause everyone at NSA to
take a paid furlough, just as a single executive order could close Guantanamo.

Obama has sworn, twice, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States. If there's something truly worth defending about bulk
collection, something so important that it's worth compromising the
Constitution, he should tell us why he's breaching the trust our electors
placed in him.

~~~
jbooth
I'm dissapointed in Obama on this issue too, especially compared to his
history of statements before becoming president, but I can't even list the
ways that metaphor ran off the rails.

------
late2part
Watch this very carefully. I predict that this purported effort to curb bad
behavior will in fact attempt to legitimize the very bad behavior most of us
find contemptable. Having shined the spotlight on the really bad behavior, I
predict this administration will then find an only half-bad solution to tout
as a compromise.

[http://www.al-ruh.org/hegelian.html](http://www.al-ruh.org/hegelian.html)

~~~
JHSheridan
Wow... I just spent an hour reading and rereading that small bit of text you
linked to. I was never even aware of such a thing.

What a powerful idea. Thanks for pointing out the possible connection here.

~~~
nl
See also
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

------
dmfdmf
We don't need a law. These programs are a violation of the constitution. What
Obama and his cronies are trying to establish is the govt's unlimited power of
surveillance. If this passes then it implicitly accepts the premise that their
policies could be legalized at anytime by a future president under future
"national interest" circumstances. This is how dictators are established.

~~~
sitkack
NSA is executive, he doesn't need a law, he can turn it off RIGHT NOW. Sure
get a law in place, but dont pretend you have to go through congress to do it.

~~~
dmfdmf
> Sure get a law in place,

No, you don't get it. Getting that law in place is _exactly_ what they want
because it avoids the Constitutional challenge. Obama and company must sense
that there is a lot of opposition to the spying, so this is merely a delay
tactic awaiting another WTC bombing or equivalent to change the law back.

The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to the
Supreme court where it belongs. It is not an Executive or Legislative branch
issue it is a Constitutional issue and it needs to be stopped on
Constitutional grounds not as a matter of legislative action.

~~~
whatevsbro
> The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to
> the Supreme court where it belongs.

You see what's going on, but reason a bit further. The Supreme Court is part
of the same government that's in the process of establishing a full police
state / tyranny. Do you think they're not part of the problem?

Can a police state's Supreme Court be independent, objective, and intent on
preserving freedom? -I wouldn't bet on it.

Get out while you can?

~~~
dmfdmf
This is the system we have and it needs to run its proper course. If the
Supreme court won't uphold our rights then obviously we have a serious
problem. This has not happened yet. The other alternative is if the Supreme
court rules spying is unconstitutional but then they are just ignored by the
Executive branch and they do it anyway. We'll have to cross these bridges when
we get to them but for now there is still constitutionally protected rights
and limited government.

> Get out while you can?

There really is nowhere to go. We have to fight for America.

~~~
sitkack
It is a wonderful place with wonderful people. No reason to leave it to a
small number of greedy who will ruin it and everyone around them.

------
aaronharnly
I think this proposal is a real and considerable improvement in the national
security apparatus. For which we have Snowden's revelations sparking of a
national conversation to thank.

Recall Snowden's original statement [1]:

"these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was
simply hired by the government."

The information changed public opinion[2]:

"[In January 2014], 40% approve of the government’s collection of telephone
and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while 53% disapprove. In
July [2013], more Americans approved (50%) than disapproved (44%) of the
program."

[1] [http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-
inter...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-interview-
transcript-full-text-read-the-guardian-s-entire-interview-with-the-man-who-
leaked-prism)

[2] [http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/20/obamas-nsa-speech-
has...](http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/20/obamas-nsa-speech-has-little-
impact-on-skeptical-public/)

------
bertil
A lot of reactions to Obama’s decisions seem to remember that he was the guy
on the _Hope_ posters, but not that he was the guy who told PolSci majors how
politics was heart-wrangling, soul-blackening compromises, all the time -- and
that you needed to keep the eye on the bigger prize, because you’d have to
sacrifice everything just under it.

Obama promised to save tens of thousands how American lives (and ten times as
many Middle-Eastern) and the budget by scaling down physical operations. To do
that, he had to grant the intelligence and military personnel everything else,
if only to avoid a coup. I hate the compromise, but I can’t imagine making a
different choice.

Yes, that appears to be extremely disappointing, but more than actual
deescalation of the surveillance apparatus, what he is working on is to make
the Intelligence community realise that they went too far, and that the fact
that Snowden could get so much information was a problem in itself. You don’t
tear things away from people when you want them to contrite, not
significantly: that comes later. Right now, most people in that community want
to drop a Hellfire on the guy: saying he was right to do what he did, and to
follow his recommendation would be akin, for the US operatives, to have the US
adopt Sharia law on Christmas 2001 because Ben Laden asked for it.

Give them time.

Show a guy who is articulate, considerate and criticise his actions ‘but his
ideals where not far off…’; show how targeted collection help keeping focus,
show how judicially-sound investigations help avoiding mistakes… The NSA will
feel confident to take off the side-wheels (still ‘protect the Homeland’
without the all-access) but that’s later, alas.

------
ChrisAntaki
Cool! What about the _content_ [1] of emails, text messages, Skype
conferences, etc...

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Is it sad I knew exactly what that room was before clicking the link?

~~~
dllthomas
Not any sadder than demanded by the implied existence of the room. It's the
only Room #### that's been talked about in this context.

------
fleitz
It's interesting that a program which the NSA's director claimed to congress
didn't even exist, which was created by the executive branch requires the
legislative branch to terminate it.

I'm pretty sure this could be solved by executive order, and/or the DOJ filing
with the petitioning the SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional.

~~~
eck
> It's interesting that a program which the NSA's director claimed to congress
> didn't even exist, which was created by the executive branch requires the
> legislative branch to terminate it.

IIRC, the Guantanamo terrorist prison program was also created without
congressional action, yet its closure was successfully prevented by Congress
-- or at least, congressional opposition to closing it was sufficient for
Obama to escape blame for failing to close it as he had promised during the
election.

So, this could just be a plan to transfer blame for the NSA onto Congress. If
he proposes a bill to reign in the NSA that he knows Congress will not pass,
it maintains the status quo but he can say that _he_ wanted to end it.

~~~
sitkack
Yes. The solution to pollution is dilution. He needs to spread "the blame"
across all of congress. Just like gitmo.

He sends legislation to congress to "fix" the problem and it never gets
through. The whole thing is a smoke screen.

------
sinak
So according to the report, Obama is going to propose legislation that:

\- Would end the NSA's authorization to collect bulk call records from
telephony providers under §215.

\- Would require the NSA to require court approval prior to every §215 call
record request. Up to 2 hops worth of call records would be included.

\- Won't require that telecoms maintain anything more than the 18 months of
call records that they are already obliged to hold.

The devil's in the details, but it sounds like a big change from the existing
call records program. If Congress passes something along these lines, it'd be
a major win.

But the §215 call records program is just a very small component of the
objectionable surveillance programs. Here's just a sampling of the others:

"Upstream" collection: The sort of thing that happens in AT&T's Room 641A -
fiber optic cables intercepted, data captured (under program names Fairview,
Blarney, Stormbrew, Oakstar). Auth'd under Executive Order 12333 and the
various FISA laws [1]. Searched using the XKEYSCORE frontend. GCHQ has similar
program called Tempora which the NSA has access to.

MUSCULAR: Jointly run by GCHQ and NSA, collects data as it passes between the
backend servers of services like Yahoo and Google. [2]

PRISM: Auth'd under §702, allows NSA to request data from tech companies about
anyone who might be "reasonably believed" to be outside the US.

BULLRUN: Various efforts to break encryption, including attempts to insert
vulnerabilities into encryption standards. Snowden's security clearance wasn't
high enough to get any real details on exactly what the NSA has achieved as
part of BULLRUN [4].

I think the scariest of those is Bullrun. We don't (and likely won't) know to
what degree the NSA has managed to break or circumvent encryption [5].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection)

[2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-
in...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-
links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-
say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html)

[3] [http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-
secret...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-
communications-nsa)

[4] [http://www.eweek.com/blogs/security-watch/nsa-
bullrun-911-an...](http://www.eweek.com/blogs/security-watch/nsa-
bullrun-911-and-why-enterprises-should-walk-before-they-run.html)

[5]
[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/376481848760606720](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/376481848760606720)

~~~
devconsole
Perhaps the scariest thing is their plan to collect and store all data on all
of your activities, then retroactively mine it. That is, from the moment you
use the internet for the first time as a 9 year old until the day you die as
an 89 year old, every text message you send, every email you write, every
website you visit, and (if you're thinking of becoming a politician) every
nude picture you send can potentially be used against you.

The reason this is scary isn't just because of the present social climate. The
current social climate is actually pretty decent. The reason it's scary is
because social climates can change quickly. A couple decades from now, what
you did legally today may be illegal. If you're pursued and prosecuted, it's
possible someone may dig through this vast trove of collected data and use it
against you.

Clapper (the head of the NSA) has taken the stance that it's okay to collect
everything, and that a "search" hasn't taken place until some human actually
tries to look through that data. He frequently uses the analogy of a library:
it's okay for the NSA to have all the books (everyone's data, everywhere)
because a search hasn't taken place until they take one of the books off the
shelf and look through it.

The temptation to use that library for purposes other than curbing terrorism
must be pretty strong.

I'm going to speculate for the sake of example. It was often cited that one of
the reasons for the 9/11 attacks was that the agencies weren't cooperating. As
such, there has been a lot of pressure for the agencies to work together since
then. I'm going to guess that if the FBI hadn't eventually tracked down DPR on
their own, they may have tried to turn to the NSA for help. While it's not
clear that the NSA has those kinds of capabilities, they're certainly more
capable than the FBI at breaching the Tor network. There are slides out there
which say something along the lines of "... we're able to deanonymize
individual targets, not everybody at once."

That example is a little bit unrelated to "collecting all data about everybody
and then mining it," but remember that if the agencies begin cooperating in
that fashion, sharing that trove of data may be the next logical step.

I apologize for speculating, and my speculation should be treated as such. But
please realize that just because they're not doing that to Americans yet
doesn't mean they're not doing it to citizens of other countries with impunity
today.

Here's another ancillary point. It should be no surprise that the NSA could
probably find out the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto pretty easily. But my point
in bringing that up is this: if Satoshi himself cannot stay anonymous, then
what hope do any of us have? Anonymity may be dead at this point. It's pretty
clear that humans will continue to live even if that's the case, but a world
without privacy is going to be a very strange one.

By the way, I should also mention that the GCHQ may be even more capable than
the NSA. There are signs that the NSA are better at pulling off attacks
(Stuxnet, Tailored Access Operations) but that GCHQ are better at collecting
data (bypassed Google's encryption). It has also been hinted that whenever the
NSA runs into roadblocks against investigating Americans, they enlist the help
of the GCHQ since it's legal for them to do so (and vice-versa). So even if
the NSA is reformed, there is still this spectre of this worldwide data
collection and governmental collaboration hovering over society.

~~~
001sky
_Perhaps the scariest thing is their plan to collect and store all data on all
of your activities, then retroactively mine it_

This is the biggest grey area/ major issue. The issue is not just 4th
amendment stuff (reasonable expectations of privacy), but selective disclosure
and prosecution (ie, equal protection). The use of this for blackmail would be
come ~irresistable to those seeking to cling to power. And this kind of stuff
is why the bill of rights exists.

~~~
nickff
The problem is that the selective disclosure and prosecution are very easy to
abuse without violating the text of the constitution; especially when the
average American commits three imprison-able offences per day, because of the
number of criminal laws, and their breadth.[1]

[1]
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870447150...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html)

------
line-zero
It's not enough.

Don't "curb" the program. Don't "reform" it. We're not interested in a fucking
"debate." Or striking a "balance."

END IT. END IT NOW!

GIVE US BACK OUR GOD-DAMNED RIGHTS!!

~~~
deciplex
If you're asking for your rights _back_ , then you seem to acknowledge that
you have none (I agree), in which case what is the point in asking for them
back? (Or, demanding, verbally, as the case may be?)

------
drawkbox
Try all we want, we can't get back from this one. Once freedoms are gone, they
are gone until revolution. That is why freedom/privacy issues you need to be
overly cautious about and side with non-authority always to keep it in check.

------
tn13
There is not need to be happy unless you read the real details of the
legislation. I have a feeling that this is going to be mostly a carrot and
stick like policy.

------
exabrial
Obama is a two faced back stabbing bus tosser. He had full knowledge of the
program from the beginning. Stop falling for this crap, he is the one that
commissioned the original program, and he is sending his own men to slaughter
to protect his own hindquarters. He is the worst kind of sleezebag that
exists...

Stop accepting these excuses from the leader of 'the most powerful nation on
earth' and HOLD OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE.

------
HashThis
Obama can ask to curb or limit the NSA. But the NSA will tell him 'no'.

------
blisterpeanuts
This feels like a diversionary tactic to me, a way to lull the general public
while allowing the real bulk data collection to continue unhindered.

The only truly meaningful action the President can take would be to suspend
all operations of the NSA for an indefinite time and furlough the staff, while
a thorough review is conducted and a public debate is held as to how much
intrusion should be tolerated.

------
Sae5waip
And only for domestic spying.

People that aren't US citizens still get no protection at all.

------
dantheman
"In a speech in January, President Obama said he wanted to get the N.S.A. out
of the business of collecting call records in bulk while preserving the
program’s abilities. He acknowledged, however, that there was no easy way to
do so, and had instructed Justice Department and intelligence officials to
come up with a plan by March 28 — Friday — when the current court order
authorizing the program expires."

I don't see how you can maintain the programs abilities without giving it
massive amounts of data - seems like someone is lying.

------
patkai
Remember what Churchill said about the USA? Something like "The USA invariable
does the right thing, after having exhausted any other alternative".

------
michaelwww
Too little too late. When are the Democrats going to realize -- and I am a
Democratic leaning Independent -- that their custodial control of the most
extensive surveillance mechanism in the history of the planet is objectionable
to the people like me who would normally support them.

------
shmerl
What about Internet traffic?

------
morbius
Unfortunately, I was paywalled.

------
dsr_
President Obama can't issue an executive order in the meantime?

~~~
catwithattitude
He can issue an order to wiretap, but not to retract.

~~~
jnbiche
Assuming it was an executive order (and I can't imagine it was anything but,
although facts are slim pickings), of course he can "retract" it, using yet
another executive order.

"EOs are published in the Federal Register, and they may be revoked by the
President at any time."[1]

1.[https://it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?page=1261](https://it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?page=1261)

------
ruttiger
Everyone prepared for disappointment?

------
ryguytilidie
I'm glad he was careful to clarify that he would only try to end one of their
many unconstitutional programs. Bravo for the man we all hoped would "change"
things. More of the fucking same.

