Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End" 138
An anonymous reader writes "Three out of five PCLOB board members are in agreement: The NSA spy programs are illegal.. Unfortunately, these lawyers are not in a position to act or make any changes, only to advise congress and the president. Could this be the start of change to come? 'According to leaked copies of a forthcoming report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), the government's metadata collection program "lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.'" Not surprisingly, the Obama administration disagrees.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:first submission (Score:5, Insightful)
Key question: (Score:1)
Unlikely. More likely is they'll just make up some sophist nonsense, the same way they did when they started cooking up ex post facto laws, and viola, they'll declare surveillance as "not surveillance." It's truly amazing (and depressing) to see the depths that the higher courts plumb in order to excuse the direct violation of their oaths.
Re: (Score:2)
lol "flamebait" -- why, good morning, your honor. :)
The truth hurts, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
I was the one that submitted the story. Seems some minor changes were made by the editor. Among those changes are the inclusion of a double period in the first line.
Re: (Score:2)
Way too optimistic (Score:1)
The only time the government has ever shut something down is if it is costing it too much money. And no one has attacked the NSA's finances.
like dust bowl agriculture programs? (Score:2)
You mean like the programs set up to deal with the drought in the 1930s which continue to cost billions of dollars in excessive food prices and waste farmer's resources?
I WISH government programs that were too expensive would be shut down.
I can't think of ANY significant federal programs that have been shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Programs are shut down for one of two reasons, someone isn't getting their pork barrel program funded and is looking for a program to shut down in retaliation, and the program contributes to the personal embarrassment of a congresscritter. To get the NSA metadata program shut down will probably require that the supporters of that program in congress publicly publish the metadata of their own, their family and their staff's phones.
They should be in suport of that, after all there's nothing incriminating or c
Re: (Score:2)
That's really not all that much...average daily number of Facebook like is 4 billion+. 350 million photos uploaded a day.
Re: (Score:2)
10 billions FB messages a day.
http://expandedramblings.com/i... [expandedramblings.com]
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"
Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.
Sadly, more people are spending the morning texting each other over last night's arrest of a rich kid with poor self discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
...arrest of a rich kid with poor self discipline.
clicky clicky! [arstechnica.net]
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
"Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion."
The real question is, how did people like that manage to get onto an oversight board?
Re: (Score:3)
Good question. This oversight board clearly wasn't subject to the proper oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is better oversight of the oversight of oversight boards!
And who will oversee that? Eventually, after enough layers of oversight, Congress.
We need a better Congress! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"We need a better Congress! :-)"
Congress needs better oversight, we need a better American people!
Re: (Score:2)
Cheat! You read the summary!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>The real question is, how did people like that manage to get onto an oversight board?
"We apologise again for the fault in the overseeing. Those responsible for overseeing the oversight board will now be overseen by a double-meta-oversight board"
("A Cøngressman once bit my sister... No realli!")
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"
Surveillance Watchdog has no authority to determine what is legal or illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
This, so very much.
It may be a high-ranking opinion, but it's still just an opinion. Until the courts weigh in with their opinions, this is little more than a show to make the case that the administration sympathizes with the public. Another, even higher-ranking opinion will still land on the President's desk saying that the program is legal, but the public won't rally around that one, of course. Then the President can cite conflicting opinions, and defer any action to the Supreme Court, which can't act wit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But it wont.
Because this has always been more about control than effectiveness.
At some point they will (if not already) start using this information for nefarious purposes such as squashing dissent, manipulation and blackmail and corporate gain. Most likely to tell the police robots which citizen to arrest and torture next.
And when that joyous time comes the NSA will be ready and waiting...
Re: (Score:3)
They've already stated that they've used it for squashing dissent and blackmail against "extremists" of some sort haven't they? The term "extremists" can be very flexible as well.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
It's even worse than you know.
I posted this on another thread [slashdot.org], but I quote below:
With draconian laws like this, all you need to do is have a chat on the dietary benefits of celery with a suspected terrorist and you could get be held without charge on the grounds of "national security".
Re: (Score:1)
Part of the never-ending war.
If we can't communicate with them, the only solution is to blow them up! That will work. Always has. Pay NO attention tot he truckloads of money behind the curtain...
Re: (Score:2)
Well there you go then.
And those robots...they are already in development.
And as always this is what we know about. Snowden would not have been privy to all of it as he only had access to the communal NSA system.
For example Cheney was well known for his large "safe full of documents" in his office - I doubt anything in there was on the NSA system...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean something like this [slashdot.org]? On the one hand, the government blatantly tips its hand about being able to track people and the protestors shouldn't be surprised. On the other, I bet it was still a bit of a shock nonetheless to be one of the people receiving the text, realizing that the govt knows your steps.
Perhaps it would be better to just use walkie talkies and leave the phone somewhere "safe" if one is planning on going to a protest. This way, a mass movement can still be kind of coordinated without
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. I think the debate over the legality is over. It's illegal.
The debate is how many lifetimes the responsible generals and Obama should spend in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how this is "obvious".
You people (as I see much of slashdot agreeing on this issue) have grown up under conditions where privacy is expected, and the more someone knows about you, the more they can use it against you. This all comes about due to the individualism nature of western culture and the overall selfish nature that we are heading towards (mostly due to a move towards an oligarchy form of government). Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue with the government watching over us.
Nonsense. If your government is made up of imperfect humans--and all of them are, obviously--then it is a serious issue when the government collects private information of this nature on almost all of its citizens. The fact that some people have no problem with it just means they're naive. "It can't happen here!" Oh, yes it can. Your government is just as human as anyone else's. If you're doing something the government doesn't like, and they have this type of surveillance, then you will likely become a targ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No actually the fact that it is possible to use private information to harm typical citizens is a sign that we need to clean up out legal and social system because we obviously don't actually like our laws and customs.
It will *always* be possible, because it is *always* possible for the government to be corrupt. It doesn't matter how much you change your legal and social systems; human corruption will always be with us.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
People who do not like what X is doing. Doesn't like the fact that X is doing it.
Tomorrows headline.
Republican Groups has serious issues, about the policy goals of the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
errrrrrrrrr... They are the government. Just not the part that's doing the spying.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't explain why a government watchdog would, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"
Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.
However, two of the five people on that committee had no problem with the program. What do schools teach anymore that 40% of the people on this committee and at least that percentage of the population and people in Congress believe it's not unconstitutional?
Illegal eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's illegal. So I guess someone's going to go to prison for the crime then.
Uh...
ba-dum-tschhh....?
It's really sad that the idea of widespread illegalactivities by the government yielding prison sentences for those involved is a joke. But that half ounce of pot you got caught with...
Re: (Score:1)
So it's illegal. So I guess someone's going to go to prison for the crime then.
They have become above the law. Everyone in the world should be afraid.
Re:Illegal eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
This.
What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?
So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?
So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.
The phrase: fait accompli comes to mind.
The worst of it is, it has been coming for over 20 years, beginning in the Reagan administration, when the groundwork was laid - the technology has evolved to the point it is considered a bummer of sufficient magnitude for people to raise a fuss over.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to start pointing fingers at an administration, at least cite your source/provide evidence. What groundwork was laid during the Reagan administration?
It's been mentioned many times, but I guess you didn't see it. Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronnie in 1981. 9/11 simply gave Bush Jr. enough national fear of enemies who may walk among us to broaden it. [fas.org] Despite a stated goal of preserving civil rights and right to privacy, Section 1.4 (a), (b), (g) & (i) are sufficiently vague to cover what has been going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, if you're going to look at the groundwork, you've got to go back to America's worst and first fascist president. FDR....
Re: (Score:2)
While one or two people on the committee were probably lawyers, I don't know if it's really up to them to declare the program illegal. They can give an opinion saying they think it's illegal, but really, it can only be declared illegal, or in other words, struck down, by a court. It'd be nice if the article made that distinction. It leads one to think that this committee has just done all the heavy lifting for the libertarians protesting the NSA's activities.
Since this was a committee appointed by governmen
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct. It is against the law. So every single congressman and woman (both repubs and dems) who not only voted for it in the beginning but renewed the laws (with gusto watch the interviews) then complained how the law was used should go to prison. Making a law then complaining that it is used is a bad law!
My 2 cents
And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Informative)
Those who run this will continue to say it's legal, and even if it isn't legal, it's Too Important to stop doing it.
And then they'll just have to find more creative ways to hide that people are being charged on the basis of illegal spying -- why no your honor, this was a routine traffic stop, and his laptop fell open.
Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.
So, they'll continue to break the law, and then they'll just lie about where the information came from.
The comparisons to the Stasi get more relevant every day, and many of us are old enough to remember the old "papers please, comrade" jokes.
Sadly, we're heading there, to the applause of some, and horror of others.
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Informative)
Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.
Here's one [arstechnica.com].
And here's a Wikipedia starting point [wikipedia.org].
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means sooner or later they will be doing this for people who disagree politically, or who oppose funding increases, or just because they can.
When your state security can put anybody on the radar of law enforcement and conceal their involvement, then it will be abused, and possibly for personal gain (your ex's new husband needs some closer scrutiny maybe?)
This just smacks of some of the worst of McCarthyism where lives can be ruined because someone decides it's convenient.
You don't have a free society when you can be subject to trumped up charges used to mask the real reasons. But increasingly, 'free' is irrelevant under the program of "appearing safe".
Oh, we see you criticized our agency ... let's see what we can dig up, oooh, says here you're having an affair, that should be enough to discredit you and draw attention away from us.
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sick and tired of hearing the Government say this. Usefulness is not a valid criterium for arguing the Constitutionality of a law!
Even the board's statement (quoted in the summary" that the spying "has shown only limited value" is a non-sequitur and should not have been mentioned because doing so lends credibility to the false premise that usefulness is relevant.
value of it critical to the Constitutional balance (Score:1)
I understand where you're coming from. However, consider the following.
The Constitution is quite clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". However, you can't bear arms in the White House,
and that's Constitutional. You have a right to bear arms. The government has a duty to protect the president. The usefulness ("furtherance of a
legitimate government interest") is larger than the freedom cost of prohibiting carry in the White House and a limited number of other locations.
As the c
Re:value of it critical to the Constitutional bala (Score:4, Interesting)
IMO, the reason that these things don't conflict is not because you don't have the right to bear arms everywhere you go, but rather because you don't necessarily have the right to go into the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Usefulness is not a valid criterium for arguing the Constitutionality of a law!
That needs some fine tuning.
Compelling-State-Interest-Test Law & Legal Definition [uslegal.com]
Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough.
Tackling the most important topics of law school, Part 6a: Constitutional judicial review and strict scrutiny [thomsonreuters.com]
Tackling the most important topics of law school, Part 6b: Rational basis, “with teeth,” and intermediate scrutiny [thomsonreuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck that. That's the same kind of argument the government used to justify the Japanese internment during WWII. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
Re: (Score:1)
So how would you have handled the German American Bund [youtube.com] Nazi patriotic organization in the US? Keep in mind the role played by ethnic Germans or collaborators in undermining the defense of various nations at the time, including Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Norway, all of which fell to German occupation, in some cases with no resistance? (There were also Japanese patriotic organizations.) None of those nations freed themselves, they were liberated by the Allies.
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:4, Insightful)
By handling them exactly the same way NAZIs get handled today: approving their parade permits and ignoring them otherwise. And then, if anybody -- NAZI or otherwise -- commits a crime, prosecute them for that crime according to normal judicial procedure.
Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Norway, by the way, were a Hell of a lot closer to Germany than the US was, both culturally and geographically, and also did not have the same tradition and laws of freedom that we had. Very little about their experience would have been applicable.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, by the way -- before you object to my position expressed previously, consider this: If it were okay to ignore the rule of law for "useful" "national security" purposes and I were in charge, your cowardly, totalitarian ass would be among the first up against the wall.
Be glad that rule of law exists.
Re:And nothing will change ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The applause is only until they do something the government doesn't like, but they generally don't realize that.
Probably won't have much affect (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it has already passed muster with the courts, Congress, and President, I doubt there will be much outcome. They are advisors, not "deciders."
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Government self-justifies increased power for itself. Nothing new here for millenia. Move along, folks.
The course of action is to vote these people out at the next election. Let the ones even who stand silently by be afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Probably won't have much affect (Score:5, Interesting)
While this opinion is in no way binding, it may still be valuable. The courts have not weighed in on the various NSA activities with any finality. One district judge has indicated it's probably constitutional. One has indicated it's not. Public disapproval can still help sway the outcome when this dispute makes its inevitable way to the supreme court.
No (Score:2)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines says that if a headline ends with a question mark, it can be answered "no." Does this apply to questions asked in summaries too?
In this case, I'm going to guess yes, the answer is no.
Three out of five? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Expect the government to replace one PCLOB member.
Man who wouldn't be king's speech (Score:5, Insightful)
From a higher level, metadata, who calls whom, and when, would have been used to round up the Founding Fathers. Had they still managed to be successful, they would have forbidden that to government without warrant.
It's really that damned simple, people.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's what might have been in an intelligence briefing for King George:
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/ar... [kieranhealy.org]
Let me draw the picture for you (Score:1)
Somebody in the government ordered that each citizen will have to:
After finishing a phone conversation it must submit a written statement to its 'supervisor' stating to whom he called, for how long and what was the topic of the conversation, such statement will store in a safe vault and the 'supervisor' promises to not to look at it.
After sending an email to somebody (or for that matter any chat in electronic form) will also require to submit such statement along with the full content of the email / chat, a
Will any who gathered data illegally go to jail? (Score:1)
That is the $6 trillion question.
(yes, that's the cost)
Another brick in the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many who will despair that reports like this will get ignored. What I think we can learn from history is that big legal and social changes in the United States don't happen overnight. It takes a long time to build the political will to fix a broken system. We saw that with the civil rights movement, we're seeing it now (in my humble opinion) with marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage.
Even though the agency that issued this report has no authority, it's one more source of media coverage, one more expert opinion saying the surveillance programs are un-American. What we need are years, not months, of frequent and critical media coverage. That is what change looks like.
I know the NSA's abuses can't end soon enough. The democratic process makes wise decisions slowly and foolish decisions instantly. Keep the pressure on, and give it time.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org... [freedomwatchusa.org]
They will continue with their legal work in open court facing color of law efforts by the US gov.
I think the outrage is hypocritical. (Score:3, Insightful)
only if you ask them to give you free stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Only if you choose to ask the furniture store to give you furniture without you paying for it can they pull your credit. If you ask them to front you some furniture, they can see what happened to other people who loaned you money. My credit report is almost empty, it lists a car loan and that's about it. Nobody sees my report because I don't go around asking people to let me spend money I don't have.
Contrast this with the government. They have thousands of records on me, every phone call I've ever made or received. All of my emails. There's no way to opt out. If I tried hard enough to get away from their prying, they have squadrons of heavily armed men to send after me.
See the difference?
Re: (Score:1)
see the difference between "exists" and "doesn't"? (Score:2)
> "I don't use credit so there is nothing to see" is no more valid than my
> "I don't talk about terrorist plots so I have nothing to hide" where phone calls or email are concerned.
It's entirely different. In the case of the NSA, there are thousands of records for every person. There IS data being stored about your daily activities. Someone might say that there isn't anything INTERESTING to see about them, but there most certainly is a LOT to see - all of their phone calls, for example.
For the cred
Re: (Score:2)
For the credit reporting agency, there simply isn't any data there if you don't go around borrowing money.
Not true.
The credit data on me does not EXIST. It's literally nothing (beyond maybe a phone book listing). So you're comparing NOTHING, no data being collected, to a vast database of our daily activities. You're saying the NSA spying is equalivent to - literally - nothing.
If I claimed "I don't use the phone or email" then I am re-framing your own argument. You are saying that one collection is BAD and one is OK based solely on the volume of information.(and since there is nothing of any value or volume, in your case, which is not at all true for the majority of people). You make an allowance for CR agencies because you (incorrectly) believe that its all about you asking for something from someone, or using their service. That same argument could be turned around if
Re: (Score:2)
I could almost say the same but at some point I wanted to by a house and no credit history meant I couldn't get a mortgage loan. Today I get offers almost every day in the mail for credit cards I could never afford to pay if I maxed them out. That is exactly what they want too, me to max out a credit card and pay the minimum payment until I've payed back the amount 4 or 5 times in interest.
How I got a good mortgage without credit (Score:2)
> I wanted to by a house and no credit history meant I couldn't get a mortgage loan.
If that's still an issue, or may be in the future, message me. I can give you the exact step-by-step plan I used for my mortgage. I even got to write my own mortgage documents, so it's assumable after it's 50% paid, I wrote the terms regarding late fees, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to a couple decades ago after I got out of college and had that first good job when I said "No credit history". Much has changed since then.
Re: (Score:1)
Consider for a moment your standard, run of the mill credit report that is easily obtainable by just about anybody.
The fact that some people sacrifice some of their privacy (Not everyone uses credit cards, believe it or not. I pay with cash as often as possible.) to corporations doesn't mean that they want additional information in the hands of the government. They are not hypocritical for being outraged.
Where is the outrage? Where is the oversight?
Maybe people do want oversight and regulations on both? That is entirely possible.
I personally don't give a shit if the NSA knows who I called.
Then you're naive and you're part of the problem. The government isn't--and never will be--made up of perfect angels. Hundreds of million
I'm wary of their reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
A thing like this ought to be legal or illegal regardless of whether it is useful or not... So, though I'm glad they've reached this conclusion, I'm hesitant to rejoice — if these are the standards to apply, we may have something horribly invasive coming in the future, which will survive legal scrutiny because it will be useful, even if otherwise illegal...
it's a waiting game (Score:2)
Opens the doors to a legal challenge from...? (Score:1)
Surely this would mean that there is now grounds for someone (not sure who) to challenge the metadata collection operation in a court? Or sue? Or pursue happyness? *shrug*
Shoe falls, White House rejects findings. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, you already know the response White House, Obama isn't agreeing with the finding. [foxnews.com]
Back in 2005 then Senator Obama complained about the Patriot Act, which he's now defending.
“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law.If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, through the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong.Giving law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing. And it’s the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans, and the ideals America stands for.”
So by his own statements he's jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Same Sex Marriage in Virginia... (Score:2)
How in the world will our government keep us pious and safe now?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the distraction thingy. While everybody is either going after Same Sex Marriage the rest of the government can continue to overspend and spy on us. Continue about your business as usual, nothing to see here.
Interesting they're saying this now. (Score:2)
Is this a new committee? Or did they just not know about this stuff until Snowden told them?
Isn't that evidence enough that there's a serious problem?
Different Definition of Illegal? (Score:1)
May I be pedantic? (Score:2)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Seems pretty simple?
I wonder when General Alexander will be facing charges?
You think they give a fuck?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The FISA court doesn't rule on constitutionality of an issue, that's up to the Supreme Court ultimately and that's what the EFF and the ACLU have been fighting for the past few years. Unfortunately the way the legal system, that third check and balance we're supposed to have, requires vast amounts of time and resources along with legal success to ever ultimately get something to a final decision through the courts. Sure, you can have a lower Federal Judge say "unconstitutional" and then have the Court of
Re: (Score:2)
and book Clapper for perjury, too. he's unquestionably guilty.
Even if he was prosecuted and convicted of perjury he'd likely be given a presidential pardon. I think prosecutors know this already and that's the reason they don't bother going after him.
I hate to be cynical, but nowadays I can't help it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, but then let Obama have the egg on his face for pardoning the twit.