House Reauthorizes Intelligence Community Funding; Refuses To Consider Amendments To Limit Domestic Surveillance

from the because-of-course dept

This is hardly a surprise given the events of the past few weeks, but the House on Friday passed legislation to authorize intelligence activities for the next year. It sailed through easily, 345 to 59. While a number of Representatives, including Zoe Lofgren, Justin Amash and Rush Holt attempted to make amendments that would do things like stop the NSA from adding back doors to encryption, or beef up whistleblower protections, I imagine it will surprise none of you to discover that the Rules Committee did not allow those amendments to come up for a vote.

Notably, those three Reps whose amendments were ignored also voted against the overall reauthorization. It's interesting to note that Rep. Sensenbrenner voted against the reauthorization as well, though it's not clear why. Rep. Alan Grayson actually introduced a bunch of amendments to curb the NSA's powers, none of which were allowed, but he still voted in favor of the overall authorization. In the end, this reauthorization was going to go through one way or the other, so this isn't a huge surprise. With the failure of most of what was good in the USA Freedom Act in the House, it quickly became clear that the House wasn't going to fix things any time soon.

Filed Under: amendments, funding, intelligence, justin amash, reauthorization, rush holt, zoe lofgren

House Passes Fake USA Freedom Act; Fight Turns To The Senate To Fix A Broken Bill

from the losing-hope dept

As explained earlier, due to pressure from the White House and NSA's supporters in Congress, what could have been real NSA reform was completely changed at the last minute, in secret. The bill, which was substantially different than what both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees unanimously approved, went to a floor vote and passed 303 to 121. It seems notable that many of the no votes were from people who felt the bill didn't do enough to protect the public from the surveillance state, rather than NSA fanboys worried about reform. Basically, the NSA and its supporters hijacked the reform process and got a bill they wanted, rather than one that actually protects the American public.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who was the original sponsor of the bill admitted that he was disappointed in what his bill eventually turned into -- though he still voted for it:

“Let me be clear: I wish this bill did more,” Sensenbrenner said during floor debate Thursday. “To my colleagues who lament the changes, I agree with you. The privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, I share your disappointment.”

There had been some hope that Rep. John Conyers might flip his vote and vote against it, but he not only voted for it, he falsely claimed that this bill would "end domestic bulk collection across the board." It does nothing of the sort. The folks who really understood this stuff were much more direct in saying what a bad bill this is. Last night, I had a chance to speak to Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who still hoped that there was a chance her colleagues would recognize how the bill had been changed in secret, and how problematic that was -- and she tried to fight the good fight on the floor this morning telling her colleagues (unlike what Conyers claimed) that this "is a bill that will actually not end bulk collection, regrettably." Furthermore, she tried to remind people that this was not the bill that was voted out of committee, to highlight the last minute changes.

Unfortunately, those who aren't paying close attention don't seem to care. They just want to be able to go back to their districts and claim they did something to "reform" the NSA, when they could have done much more. But this bill doesn't do that. As Lofgren noted on the floor: "If we leave any ambiguity at all, we have learned that the intelligence community will drive a truck through that ambiguity." And this bill leaves in a ton of ambiguity. On purpose. That was put in at the last minute, with help from the White House.

Either way, the fight now shifts over to the Senate, who will have to approve their own version. Senator Leahy has a version of the bill, but he will face fierce opposition from Senator Feinstein, and the support for reform in the Senate has always been weaker than in the House anyway. Still, some hope that a strong enough public outcry may pressure the Senate into at least something better than the House version.

Filed Under: bulk collection, congress, house, jim sensenbrenner, john conyers, nsa, section 215, surveillance, usa freedom act, zoe lofgren

How Congress & The White House Are Trying To Screw You Over In Secret With The Revamped USA Freedom Act

from the and-left-everyone-with-no-alternative dept

So we already wrote about how the House completely watered down the USA Freedom Act to the point that it really does very little, leading basically all of the civil liberties community to withdraw their support for the bill. If you want to know a little more about the politics at play, I highly recommend Jennifer Granick's explanation, in which she notes the unfortunate reality: this bill no longer ends bulk surveillance at all -- and, in fact, appears to authorize some things that were previously considered questionable, such as the NSA's ability to do "about" searches, rather than just "to" and "from" searches (i.e., rather than just looking for emails from or to a certain person, they want access to emails about that person too).

You may have noticed that while all of the various civil liberties groups have pulled their support -- they have not urged lawmakers to vote against this bill. While there is some fairly contentious debates going on over whether or not some of these groups should go that far, they've basically been painted into a corner. As Granick notes, if the USA Freedom Act doesn't pass, something even worse is likely to happen:

Reformers are still reluctant to openly oppose USA Freedom. That's partially because of the specter of the House Intelligence Committee bill, the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act, which would expand surveillance under the mantle of reform. Privacy groups seem whipsawed between the pale appearance of surveillance reform that is USA Freedom and the actual surveillance expansion that is the Intel bill.

In other words, Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, along with the White House, may have played a game of chess here. They presented their bill, which clearly would make things worse by expanding the NSA's powers, and used it as a sort of backstop. If a bad USA Freedom Act fails, they'll try to push their even worse bill through, and much of Congress could just run home to tell angry constituents that they "fixed" the NSA surveillance issue when they really made it worse. They more or less set it up so that people have to accept the lesser of two evils. But neither will do anything to fix the actual problems of the NSA's overly broad surveillance.

You can almost hear Ruppersberger laughing as he basically laughs off any concern for civil liberties groups, whose importance he couldn't care less about. Remember, the NSA is headquartered in his district:

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, seemed unconcerned that the privacy activists' complaints about the changes could lead to a revolt on the House floor.

"This is the way Congress is supposed to work," he said. "Republicans and Democrats, liberals, conservatives, moderates coming together and finding a way to do things that are right for America."

But of course, this isn't all of those groups "coming together" or "finding a way to do things that are right." It's the opposite. The original bill, the one that actually fixed many of the problems had tremendous support in Congress. Enough to pass. It was (1) Congressional leadership who first watered it down, followed by (2) the House Intelligence Committee undermining the already watered down agreement (which was agreed to unanimously by both Judiciary and Intelligence committees) with demands to further water it down and (3) the White House putting even more pressure on the House to change the bill even though it already had so much support.

So, rather than all these groups coming together, it's the opposite. They came together, and were then undermined -- and the White House is now happy about this. While it had remained silent on these bills for months, it has suddenly come out in favor of the USA Freedom Act, which was weakened down in large part due to pressure from within the White House itself, which never wanted real surveillance reform in the first place.

The whole thing is fairly typical backroom political wheeling and dealing where it's the public that gets screwed. Even the tech industry, who has been fairly quiet on the bills has finally woken up to the fact that this bill does nothing to end bulk surveillance. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Dropbox, Microsoft and AOL all pulled their own support of the bill, but it's not going to matter. Chances are the bill is going to pass.

Folks who are actual supporters of civil liberties are quite reasonably angry about all of this. Rep. Zoe Lofgren took to the floor of the House yesterday to decry the situation, highlighting the sheer insanity of the fact that a bill that is supposedly about increased transparency concerning surveillance was changed in secret away from what was unanimously approved by the House Judiciary Committee (and the House Intelligence Committee), to create something that was less transparent. Perhaps it's not so ironic that a bill about transparency would be stripped of the transparency features in a non-transparent process. Rep. Justin Amash has noted that he's "troubled" by what's become of the bill -- and that "Americans expect Congress to protect their basic rights." Unfortunately, at this point, he may be overestimating what Americans have come to expect of Congress. We may want them to protect our basic rights, but we've increasingly learned not to expect it. In fact, we're increasingly being taught to expect the exact opposite.

If Congress wants to actually change that impression, and show that it actually wants to "do the right thing" or "protect the basic rights" of the public, it should reject this bill and go back to the drawing board (or even back to the original USA Freedom Act).

Filed Under: congress, dutch ruppersberger, transparency, usa freedom act, zoe lofgren

Amendments Offered To NDAA To Try To Stop NSA Surveillance Abuse

from the forcing-hands dept

If you're wondering why the USA Freedom Act finally started moving forward again, a good place to look is tomorrow's vote on re-upping the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), with a variety of folks in the House proposing amendments that would lead to defunding certain NSA activities. As you may recall, last year, Rep. Justin Amash proposed defunding the NSA's Section 215 bulk data collection program, which came very close to passing. Fearing a similar effort, the House leadership decided to finally get moving on USA Freedom. Of course, with USA Freedom watered down, attention is turning back to the NDAA Amendments, with the vote on all of this happening tomorrow.

There are a ton of amendments, many of which won't get anywhere at all, but Amash is back with a few amendments, along with Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Rush Holt, Alan Grayson and some others. Amash, Lofgren and Holt have teamed up for a couple of amendments trying to block bulk collection under Section 215. Meanwhile Lofgren and Holt have an amendment to deny funding for the NSA's weakening of encryption and inserting back doors in technology. Lofgren and Amash, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, have an amendment defunding Section 702 "warrantless wiretapping" efforts. Grayson goes for the gold with an amendment that would block funds for any surveillance done on American citizens inside the US without probable cause. While there's no way this amendment will get approved, it's basically just saying "hey, you know what, we should obey the 4th Amendment."

Filed Under: alan grayson, amendments, justin amash, ndaa, rush holt, zoe lofgren

Eric Holder Admits That, If It Wanted, NSA Could Collect Internet Searches & Emails Just Like Phone Metadata

from the no-constitutional-issue-at-all dept

During a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing concerning oversight, Rep. Zoe Lofgren decided to quiz Attorney General Eric Holder about the federal government's surveillance efforts, starting off with a rather simple question. She notes that the bulk phone record collection program is considered to be legal by its supporters, based on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows for the collection of "business records." So, she wonders, is there any legal distinction between phone records and, say, internet searches or emails? In other words, does the DOJ believe that it would be perfectly legal for the US government to scoop up all your search records and emails without a warrant? Holder clearly does not want to answer the question, and first tries to answer a different question, concerning the bulk phone records program, and how the administration is supposedly committed to ending it. But eventually he's forced to admit that there's no legal distinction: This is important. As you may recall, some of the attempts to deal with the phone record collection, including President Obama's, focus only on ending the specific phone record collection program, not the underlying law (or the interpretation of that law). This isn't to say that there are ongoing programs to do bulk warrantless collection of those other types of information, but it is worth recognizing that the government believes there would be no Constitutional issue if it decided to set up such a program.

All along, this has been the problem with Section 215. When it first was discussed, it was often called the "library" provision, as the example that people talked about was using Section 215 to collect the records of what books someone checked out of the library. However, as the phone collection program showed, it's been turned into something much, much broader. Fixing this interpretation is going to take a lot more than just ending one program. It requires changing what is allowed by Section 215.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, business records, emails, eric holder, internet searches, nsa, section 215, surveillance, warrants, zoe lofgren

Border Patrol Given New Deadly Force Guidelines After Report Shows Officers Created Dangerous Situations To Justify Opening Fire

from the bringing-a-gun-to-a-rock-fight dept

The US Border Patrol has handed down new guidelines for use of deadly force after its agents killed 19 people in 67 shooting incidents between 2010-2012.

The U.S. Border Patrol has restricted border agents' authority to shoot at moving vehicles or at people throwing rocks, changing a controversial policy that has contributed to at least 19 deaths since 2010…

The new rules would bring the Border Patrol's practices closer to those used routinely by the nation's major urban police departments. They are a response, in part, to widespread complaints from immigrant advocates that border agents have shot and killed people in some cases when deadly force was not necessary to protect the lives of agents or the public.

Why did the CBP open fire on so many people? Well, it's because agents feared for their safety. Why did they fear for their safety? Because they put themselves deliberately in that position, according to a report commissioned by the CBP and written by law enforcement experts.

House and Senate oversight committees requested copies last fall but received only a summary that omitted the most controversial findings — that some border agents stood in front of moving vehicles as a pretext to open fire and that agents could have moved away from rock throwers instead of shooting at them…

"It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force," the report reads. In some cases, "passengers were struck by agents' gunfire."

Judging from this, one would almost believe certain CBP agents were just looking for excuses to shoot someone. And the CBP agents' response has been to claim that new guidelines -- telling them not to stand in front of escaping vehicles and to move away from rock-throwing individuals -- will somehow make the job more dangerous.

The response, marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," states that a ban on shooting at rock throwers "could create a more dangerous environment" because many agents operate "in rural or desolate areas, often alone, where concealment, cover and egress is not an option."

If drug smugglers knew border agents were not allowed to shoot at their vehicles, it argues, more drivers would try to run over agents.

The authors of the report had this to say in response to the CBP's speculative assertion (spearheaded by CBP union reps, who have stated that they will "oppose any restriction on CBP officers' use of force").

"It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver … is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat," it says. "Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents."

So, while the new guidance lays out some common sense rules in hopes of decreasing the number of deadly shootings, some feel it still doesn't go far enough. The ACLU is recommending the use of body cameras to ensure each use of force is properly documented. Zoe Lofgren has called for more transparency from the agency itself, which has still refused to reveal how many officers (if any) received any sort of disciplinary action for inappropriate use of force.

The CBP obviously has transparency issues. Every effort was made to prevent this report from being made public, despite the CBP itself commissioning it. And, as we've covered earlier, the CBP has obscured the use of its drone "lending library" by failing to produce documents and heavily redacting those it did turn over in response to FOIA requests.

It's one thing for these agents to defend themselves against deadly force. It's quite another to put yourself in harm's way simply to justify the use of deadly force (the it's-coming-right-for-us loophole). If the agency is truly seeking to rid itself of its trigger-happy reputation, it needs to enforce these guidelines and open up its use of force track record to public scrutiny.

Filed Under: aclu, border patrol, cbp, zoe lofgren

DOJ Admits That NSA Collection Of Phone Records 'Probably' Sweeps Up Congress As Well

from the but-of-course dept

Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders asked a simple question to the NSA: in collecting all those phone records, does that include the phone records of members of Congress (including both their personal and work phones)? The NSA's response was that "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons" -- but since the data collection covers all US persons, it was a basic admission that, yes, of course the NSA is sweeping up their phone records as well.

That issue came up again during this week's House Judiciary Committee Hearings, in which some members of Congress finally got to ask the question live to Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who more or less admitted that Congress's information is collected as well:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, began by asking Peter Swire, a member of the president's handpicked surveillance review board, whether lawmakers' numbers are included in the agency's phone-records sweeps. Swire protested that he was not a government official and couldn't best answer the question, but said he was unaware of any mechanism that "scrubbed out" member phone numbers from the agency's data haul.

Lofgren's time expired and Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, then put the question to Cole.

"Mr. Cole, do you collect 202, 225, and four digits afterwards?" Issa asked, referring to the prefixes used to call congressional offices.

"We probably do, Mr. Congressman," Cole responded. "But we're not allowed to look at any of those, however, unless we have reasonable, articulable suspicion that those numbers are related to a known terrorist threat."

And while Representatives like Pete King have argued in the past that the NSA should spy on Congress because they might be talking to terrorists, Issa pointed out that he sometimes has perfectly legitimate reasons for talking to those who might be in the NSA's target list:

Issa rejoindered that he had been in touch with the deputy prime minister of Lebanon after accusations emerged that the official had given money to Hezbollah, warning that a senior member of Congress was only two degrees of separation from terrorists.

Slowly, but surely, it appears that more and more people in Congress are recognizing that the NSA's activities are incredibly broad in their overreach.

Filed Under: congress, darrell issa, doj, house judiciary committee, james cole, nsa, surveillance, zoe lofgren

Congressional Reps Ask Bruce Schneier To Explain To Them What The NSA Is Doing, Because The NSA Won't Tell Them

from the look-at-that dept

This is both depressing and good news at the same time. A group of Congressional Representatives (who are among the most critical of the NSA) apparently asked Bruce Schneier to come brief them on what the NSA is doing because the NSA won't tell them:

This morning I spent an hour in a closed room with six Members of Congress: Rep. Logfren, Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Scott, Rep. Goodlate, Rep Thompson, and Rep. Amash. No staffers, no public: just them. Lofgren asked me to brief her and a few Representatives on the NSA. She said that the NSA wasn't forthcoming about their activities, and they wanted me -- as someone with access to the Snowden documents -- to explain to them what the NSA was doing. Of course I'm not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. And that it's extremely freaky that Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me. I really want oversight to work better in this country.

There's really not much more to be said about that, other than it shows what a complete joke it is for anyone to claim that Congress has real oversight over the NSA. It's great that these Reps would reach out to someone with qualifications like Schneier to have this kind of conversation. It's depressing that such a thing was necessary.

Filed Under: bob goodlatte, bruce schneier, congress, jim sensenbrenner, justin amash, nsa, oversight, security, surveillance, zoe lofgren

If 'Just Metadata' Isn't An Issue, Why Can't Tech Companies Reveal 'Just Metadata' About NSA Surveillance?

from the simple-questions dept

You may have heard the news today that a bunch of big tech companies -- including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, Mozilla, Reddit, Tumblr and others -- have sent a strong letter to a variety of government officials, both in the administration and Congress, demanding greater transparency, and the ability to reveal more information about the government's various surveillance programs that compel the tech companies to participate:

We the undersigned are writing to urge greater transparency around national security-related requests by the US government to Internet, telephone, and web-based service providers for information about their users and subscribers.

First, the US government should ensure that those companies who are entrusted with the privacy and security of their users’ data are allowed to regularly report statistics reflecting:

• The number of government requests for information about their users made under specific legal authorities such as Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the various National Security Letter (NSL) statutes, and others;
• The number of individuals, accounts, or devices for which information was requested under each authority; and
• The number of requests under each authority that sought communications content, basic subscriber information, and/or other information.

Second, the government should also augment the annual reporting that is already required by statute by issuing its own regular “transparency report” providing the same information: the total number of requests under specific authorities for specific types of data, and the number of individuals affected by each.

As an initial step, we request that the Department of Justice, on behalf of the relevant executive branch agencies, agree that Internet, telephone, and web-based service providers may publish specific numbers regarding government requests authorized under specific national security authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the NSL statutes. We further urge Congress to pass legislation requiring comprehensive transparency reporting by the federal government and clearly allowing for transparency reporting by companies without requiring companies to first seek permission from the government or the FISA Court.

This follows on a somewhat somewhat similar letter from Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Zoe Lofgren to Attorney General Holder and Director of National Intelligence Clapper, urging them "to authorize U.S. companies to release information regarding national security requests for user data."

Both letters point out that they're just looking for the ability to reveal specific numbers about orders received and user accounts impacted, but obviously not further information that might reveal the details of any investigations. Basically, they're asking for "just the metadata."

You may have spotted the irony, pointed out by Ashkan Soltani: Defenders of many of the government's surveillance programs have repeatedly trotted out the "just metadata" argument for why all of this surveillance is no problem, claiming that mere metadata doesn't reveal anything important. Yet, when it comes to their own metadata about their own surveillance programs, suddenly it will reveal all their secrets? (And I won't even get into the fact that only some of the surveillance programs are "just metadata").

So, which is it, feds? Is "just metadata" nothing too important, or does it reveal everything?

Filed Under: jim sensenbrenner, metadata, national security letters, nsa surveillance, surveillance, tech companies, zoe lofgren
Companies: apple, facebook, google, microsoft, mozilla, reddit, tumblr, twitter, yahoo