Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?

from the not-good dept

Thu, May 19th 2016 8:38am — Mike Masnick

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) is supposed to be an independent body that makes sure that the intelligence community is not abusing its surveillance powers. It was created to go along with the PATRIOT Act, as a sort of counterbalance, except that it initially had basically no power. In 2007, Congress gave it more power and independence and... both the Bush and Obama administrations responded by... not appointing anyone to the PCLOB. Seriously. The Board sat entirely dormant for five whole years before President Obama finally appointed people in late 2012. Thankfully, that was just in time for the Snowden revelations less than a year later.

The PCLOB then proceeded to write a truly scathing report about the NSA's metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, calling it both illegal and unconstitutional. While the PCLOB was less concerned about the NSA's Section 702 program (which includes both PRISM and "upstream" collection from backbone providers) the group has been working for nearly two years on an investigation into Executive Order 12333 -- which is the main program under which the NSA spies on people.

However, as Marcy Wheeler points out, Congress seems to be bending over backwards to try to undermine and undercut the PCLOB. That's especially unfortunate, because at one point there was even a bipartisan effort to give the PCLOB more power, but things seem to have gone the other way instead:

As I reported, during the passage of Intelligence Authorization last year (which ultimately got put through on the Omnibus bill, making it impossible for people to vote against), Congress implemented Intelligence Community wishes by undercutting PCLOB authority in two ways: prohibiting PCLOB from reviewing covert activities, and stripping an oversight role for PCLOB that had been passed in all versions of CISA.

In the 2017 Intelligence Authorization HPSCI passed on April 29, it continued more of the same.

The new changes are subtle, but problematic. The first is that the PCLOB is limited to spending money only on issues for which Congress has directly approved the spending. In other words, if Congress doesn't want the PCLOB investigating a certain area, no problem, it can just make it clear that funding does not cover that area. That kind of voids the PCLOB's supposedly "independent" nature. The second issue is that it requires that the PCLOB warn intelligence community bosses if they're going to investigate a new program. While these changes may not seem like a big deal, they do suggest a clear attempt to undermine the power and authority of the PCLOB. Perhaps that's why the head of the PCLOB, David Medine, resigned early, before his appointment was up, just a few months ago.

At a time when we need a lot more independent oversight of government surveillance powers, it's unfortunate to see Congress apparently pushing for less oversight.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, oversight, pclob, surveillance

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 8:49am

It's no wonder Congress is fighting back. They weren't appointed to actually find problems with surveillance, they were appointed to reassure the public that there were no problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 19 May 2016 @ 8:57am

Encrypt Everything
This is exactly why "Encrypt Everything" has gained popularity. We are losing faith that the government is respecting the rights of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Encrypt Everything
  I lost faith a long time ago. With only an 8% congress approval rating, I am probably not the only one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 11:21am
  
  Re: Encrypt Everything
  It's hard to maintain a belief such as "the government respects the rights of the people" in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 9:08am

Signs and symptoms of corruption
When the people responsible for one of the checks and balances countering the executive branch reverses course and bends over backwards to support the branch they are supposed to be balancing there is a reason why. We now know that the electronic data and metadata of congress has been collected by one or more member of 5 eyes both before and after they were elected. The people are no longer being represented by their government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JonC (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 9:14am

Looks like we're going to need a constitutional amendment if we want actual oversight implemented. It's really sad that we'd have to go that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 10:32am
  
  There's an app for that too:
  Secret interpretation. Even a robust oversight amendment would be interpreted to mean something else (e.g. assuring the public that things are just fine.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: There's an app for that too:
    Yes, this.
    
    The direction that the feds have taken on these topics has convinced me that even the finest constitutional amendment ever written would fail to have the intended results.
    
    We have deviated too far from the idea of "rule of law" for it to work. Other things need to be addressed first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MarcAnthony (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 9:26am

Viva la status quo
Oversight isn’t just being undermined, it’s being systematically neutered because actual oversight challenged institutionalized illegal practices. PLCLOB was the turd in NSA’s punchbowl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 9:33am

Specifics
These articles shouldn't just say Congress they should name specific members, especially if they are up for reelection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 9:33am

no news here.

we're broken and really should be replaced by something that works for us all instead of on us all. or most of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  Vote Trump, why vote for the lesser evil?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 11:28am
    
    Voting Trump would make me feel dirty.
    But so would voting for Hillary.
    
    If I were to vote for a true evil it'd have to be Great Cthulhu or Astaroth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Neither Trump nor Clinton are the lesser evils. There are others running for the office who are much lower on the evil scale.
    
    Don't think that you have to choose between Brand A and Brand B.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 4:21pm
      
      The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
      You're voting against the greater evil.
      
      And you get one vote with which to do it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 7:06pm
        
        Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
        True enough -- even counting third parties, the available roster is very slim. That said, no matter how large the roster is, the odds are that nobody will be 100% perfect -- so you're trying to select the least imperfect candidate you can under any imaginable system. In that sense, it is almost impossible to do anything but pick the lesser of available evils.
        
        Or I could rephrase it more positively as selecting the candidate who is as perfect as possible. That is logically the same thing.
        
        I actually found a candidate that appears to be good to me (so far, my research isn't complete). As in, I could vote for them without even having to hold my nose. But it's not a candidate put forth by the Dems or Reps.
        
        I'm very, very happy about this. It looks like I'll be able to vote the way voting is intended: for a candidate that I largely (although not completely) agree with! That would be impossible if I were to constrain myself to choosing between Dems and Reps.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 20 May 2016 @ 3:17pm
        
        Re: Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
        To give your candidate a reasonable chance of getting in you need to take part in the campaign to get him or her elected and get as many other people on board as you can. In a first-past-the-post system it's a numbers game; you need as many people on side as possible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 21 May 2016 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
        Yes indeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Wanderer (profile), 21 May 2016 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
        This being why I'm increasingly convinced the only way we'll get political reform in this country is if we start by implementing ranked-preference voting (Condorcet-satisfying, if at all possible), from the bottom up - i.e., first in cities and counties, then at the state level, on up until it's being used in federal elections.
        
        Otherwise, the spoiler effect will serve to prevent enough people not beholden to the existing powers from getting into office, and the people in power will have no incentive to try to get things changed - because the changes which are needed, though good in the larger picture, would have the side effect of making it easier for other people to win their seats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Indeed, the greater evil is much better. There'll finally be a critical mass of people who are cool with burning it all down and starting fresh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 19 May 2016 @ 10:02am

Maybe I'm becoming (more?) cynical, but a question like "Why is Congress undermining the President's surveillance oversight board?" makes me immediately think the answer is "because the President is a Democrat".

It feels like we've gotten to a point when people can't even agree on a good idea if it happens to come from the "other" party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re:
  That's certainly the wrong answer, since Republicans are no less likely to do precisely the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Wanderer (profile), 21 May 2016 @ 4:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think his point is that it is Republicans who are doing it: a Republican Congress, the same one which has reflexively opposed anything the Democratic President's administration tries to do. (With the odd exception of the USTR.)
    
    While a Republican Congress might indeed weaken the PCLOB under a Republican President as well, they would be doing it for different reasons from the reason they're doing it under a Democratic President.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 21 May 2016 @ 4:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I think I got muddled there. What I was trying to say was that neither party has the high ground on this stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 11:05am

Congress fails time and time again to provide any of the oversight they are charged with providing, they can't let another body show them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 11:48am

Does PCLOB matter?
The intelligence agencies despise criticism--destroy the source if they can--hence this bill to take even the criticism away. But you have to realize that eliminating PCLOB entirely would have as much effect as lifting a teaspoon of water from the ocean; then you'll understand that eliminating their criticism of particular programs hardly matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 12:55pm

Oh that's easy enough
A few people from the Intelligence agencies went over and had a little chat about that mean PCLOB saying not very nice things about them, and like the tools they are congress promised them that they'd get right on making sure that the 'independent' 'oversight group' was reduced such that it would no longer be either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Cortright (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 1:17pm

In other news, PCLOB starts pro bono program
PR Newswire, Washington DC (May 19, 2016)
Today the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) is announcing—effective immediately—its pro bono program for all employees. Similar to Google's "20% time" program, it allows employees to investigate and report on offices of the government that the PCLOB isn't currently covering. The one notable difference is that employees will not be paid for their time doing this work. "Much like the pro bono legacy that lawyers have established, our program will encourage employees to give back to the underserved areas of the government to ensure all have equal access to our services" said a spokesperson for the PCLOB.

When reached for comment, a member of Congress who asked to remain anonymous said, "Well, fuck. Now we're going to have to find another way to bury this illegal activity."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyne Tibbets (profile), 19 May 2016 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re: In other news, PCLOB starts pro bono program
  How about the inevitable espionage charge? Does the program protect these whistle-blowing employees from being charged with espionage?
  
  If not, then Congress need not worry its empty heads: because no employee is sticking his neck out while the axe awaits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2016 @ 8:57pm

They were never meant to actually do the job they were created for. It was a sop to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 20 May 2016 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  Where's a First Word credit when you need one...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wyrm (profile), 20 May 2016 @ 9:16am

Secret laws (or failing that, secret interpretations or secret definition of common words), covering secret trials and/or secret evidence.
I'm actually amazed they bother with secret investigations to begin with.

They can go to a secret judge, pleading secret charges with secret evidence, and they'd probably manage a conviction 9 times out of 10.
Heck, most of the times they might even be able to do this with a normal judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]