TPP Agreement: Obama Wants Something The Public 'Can Look At' In November

from the but-what? dept

Transparency -- or lack of it -- has emerged as a major issue for all the big trade agreements that are currently being negotiated: TAFTA/TTIP, TISA, CETA and TPP. That makes the following story from Reuters, about a move to open up TPP slightly, intriguing:

Pacific trading partners hope to have a free trade agreement ready to present to the public and stakeholders in November, U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday.

More specifically, he is quoted as saying:

"Our hope is by the time we see each other again in November, when I travel to Asia, we should have something that we have consulted with Congress about, that the public can take a look at, and we can make a forceful argument to go ahead and close the deal," he told reporters after the meeting.

As the Reuters article notes, that comes as something of a surprise since the talks seemed to have ground to a halt recently, despite original hopes that they would be finished last year. Indeed, some participants remain pessimistic:

Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb, who visited the United States last week, was reported as saying on June 18 there was no chance of a deal this year, though he hoped it could be concluded in the first half of 2015.

That uncertainty raises the question: what exactly does the President's statement mean? Is it just an attempt to give some momentum to the talks by setting a new deadline? Will there really be a document released in November? And even if there is something that the public "can take a look at" then, what exactly will that be? The full text of the agreement? That seems unlikely; what President Obama has in mind is probably some sanitized summary.

Still, the very fact that he has made this comment, however vague and unsatisfactory it might be, suggests that the increasingly-widespread calls for transparency are having some effect. We obviously need to keep it up.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: barack obama, negotiations, tpp, transparency

USTR's Anti-Transparency Rules For TAFTA/TTIP Documents Published

from the now-let's-have-the-others-anyway dept

Alongside the corporate sovereignty provisions, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations is the deep secrecy that surrounds them. This is largely unbroken on the US side, aside from a few token meetings with the public in which questions are deflected with content-free or generic replies. The EU has at least released a few documents outlining its general negotiating positions, although this week we learned that British MPs aren't allowed to see details of the mandate that was given to the EU's negotiators, so the openness is still minimal. Now, in a rather ironic development, through a Freedom Of Information Act request Knowledge Ecology International has managed to obtain a letter sent in July 2013 to the European Commission outlining the measures the USTR will be taking to keep the talks as un-transparent as possible:

As we prepare for the initiation of negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement, I would like to thank you for your letter of July 5, 2013, describing the arrangements that the European Union (EU) has in place for the protections of negotiating documents, given the sensitive nature of their content and that apply in the context of negotiations for a TTIP Agreement. I take this opportunity to inform you of the arrangements that the United States will apply for the protection of TTIP negotiating documents, given the sensitive nature of their content.

There is the obligatory nod to openness:

Transparency is an important principle for the Obama Administration, just as it is for the EU.

Which is swiftly negated by the following:

However, the United States also shares the EU's view that a certain level of special care in handling these documents is necessary to enable mutual trust between negotiators and for each side to preserve positions taken for tactical reasons with regard to third countries with which we are or could be negotiating in the future.

Those are pretty feeble excuses. It's imposing secrecy that makes trust necessary: if everything in the negotiations were out in the open, as is the case for WIPO meetings, trust wouldn't be required. And as for "preserving positions", their final form will be evident for all to see in the agreement, assuming it is concluded, and how those final positions were achieved tactically is largely a product of the particular negotiating dynamics between the US and EU, and hardly relevant to any other talks which might happen. As the letter explains, basically everything is to be kept secret, except for two groups of people:

For the US side, this means that documents containing such information may be provided only to (1) US government officials, and (2) persons outside the US government who participate in its internal consultation process and who have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents. Anyone provided access to the documents will be informed that they are not permitted to share the documents with persons who are not authorized to see them.

That is, lobbyists can still be provided with access, since it is obviously vital that they "review" whether the terms are acceptable to their industries, but there's nothing for the general public. No surprise there, but the following is news:

The United States will hold the TTIP documents in confidence for five years after entry into force of the TTIP Agreement, or if no agreement enters into force, for five years after the last round of negotiations.

That's even worse than for TPP, where the participants have agreed to keep all the negotiating documents secret for four years after ratification. That's an indication that the USTR is not content with keeping details of the negotiations away from the prying eyes of the public as they happen, but aims to lock them down for even longer than with TPP. You really have to wonder what the US has to hide there.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, secrecy, tafta, transparency, ttip, ustr

Group Of Major PR Firms Pledge To Play Nice On Wikipedia

from the good-start dept

There's always been an air of distrust when it comes to how public relations firms deal with Wikipedia pages for their clients, especially when it comes to making edits. I'd guess this general feeling has likely come about due to equal parts a misunderstanding about how most PR groups operate and a few bad actors spoiling everyone's opinion. Contrary to what some might believe, there is a place for representative requests to edit out incorrect material on Wikipedia, so long as the ultimate goal is to serve public the most accurate information. That someone is on the payroll of the subject of an article sounds like it should be a conflict of interest, but that's simply not always the case. Good PR firms are less about spin and more about managing the communication channels and getting the public accurate information about their clients. Still, the distrust persists -- in part because there are plenty of PR firms that aren't so "good."

Now a group of the larger public relations firms are coming out with a pledge to deal fairly and accurately when it comes to Wikipedia edits and to route them through the proper channels.

In the statement, 11 PR agencies "publicly state and commit" to abide by five principles that would prevent them from editing a client's Wikipedia entry without first going through proper channels. It also makes overtures toward repairing the tenuous relationship between the PR industry and Wikipedia.

"On behalf of our firms, we recognize Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge resource," the statement begins. "We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors. Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices."

The companies signing onto the statement include Edelman, Ogilvy and Mather, Fleishman Hillard, Burson-Marsteller, Ketchum, Porter Novelli, Peppercomm, MDC Partners, Voce Communications, Allison and Partners, and Beutler Ink. Those are some impressive names in the industry and the statement they released represents a serious step forward both for how the industry interacts with the Wikipedia community and for affirming Wikipedia's stature as a whole. You have to understand that in PR-land, you don't make this kind of promise unless you have every intention of keeping it. PR is all about managing expectations, but this statement sets the reader's expectations quite high. The statement essentially promises to refrain from creating so-called sock-puppet Wikipedia accounts used to edit articles on which there is a conflict of interest. Even the management for the firms appear to be on board with playing by the ethical rules.

"If you are a paid advocate, then you should refrain from editing articles directly," said Mr. Beutler. "But PR people can contribute by making sure correct information is made correct." And what happens when an unhappy client calls its agency asking them to remove or edit something on its Wikipedia page? According to Mr. Beutler, these agencies should go to Wikipedia's "talk" areas and make their case about why an article should be edited. "This works," he said. "But it doesn't work terribly efficiently," he added.

Even as this pledge is being made, Wikipedia itself is making some significant modifications to their ToS to codify this sort of thing and attempt to increase the transparency on edits made by paid actors. Volunteer editors and those working with libraries and museums will continue to operate as they always have, but those receiving any kind of pay for editing articles are required to make disclosures as such.

If you are paid to edit, other rules beyond the Terms of Use may also apply. Specific policies on individual Wikimedia projects, or relevant laws in your country (such as those prohibiting fraudulent advertising), may require further disclosure or prohibit paid advocacy editing altogether. Details on the legal issues and risk associated with undisclosed paid advocacy editing may be found in this FAQ.

That seems to line up everyone's goal at promoting good behavior nicely. Except, that is, for all those PR firms and agencies that didn't sign on to this pledge. Wikipedia's changes put them on notice that it is going to take this kind of thing seriously and the proactive pledge from the other PR firms makes non-signees look late to the game. If this works, it will hopefully only amplify the status of Wikipedia as an open and trusted source for reliable information.

Filed Under: editing, pr, public relations, transparency, wikipedia
Companies: allison and partners, beutler ink, burson-marstellar, edelman, fleishman hillard, ketchum, mdc partners, ogilvy and mather, peppercomm, porter novelli, voce communications, wikipedia

Administration Helping Bury Documents Related To Local Law Enforcement Use Of Cell Tower Spoofers

from the widening-the-gap-between-'us'-and-'them' dept

The recent story about the US Marshals Service stepping in to prevent the ACLU from obtaining documents related to the Sarasota (FL) Police Department's ownership and use of cell tower spoofers is apparently not an isolated instance. According to an AP report, the US government is actively inserting itself into the "discussion" by ensuring no one gets to talk about the controversial devices.

The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned.

Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.

Beyond the obvious negative impact on the much-vaunted "transparency" this administration claims to personify, there's also the new disturbing level of overreach -- the US government actively interfering with state-level Freedom of Information requests. In addition to the restrictive non-disclosure agreements that law enforcement agencies must sign when purchasing Stingray devices (and these agencies' general reluctance to share surveillance equipment info with the public), the government itself is taking an active role in erecting a wall between the public and its public servants.

Interviews, court records and public-records requests show the Obama administration is asking agencies to withhold common information about the equipment, such as how the technology is used and how to turn it on. That pushback has come in the form of FBI affidavits and consultation in local criminal cases.

Harris, the largest manufacturer of cell tower spoofers, specifically directs law enforcement to consult with the FBI during the purchase process, as well as before deploying the devices. The company claims this is all above board because it's "regulated" by its status as a government contractor. That might mean something if it wasn't so closely aligned with these government agencies' desire to keep the technology secret.

And, of course, the government has used its go-to defenses to justify its secrecy efforts. Above, it mentioned "security." A supporting affadavit filed by an FBI agent in a Freedom of Information lawsuit adds another:

A court case challenging the public release of information from the Tucson Police Department includes an affidavit from an FBI special agent, Bradley Morrison, who said the disclosure would "result in the FBI’s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity because through public disclosures, this technology has been rendered essentially useless for future investigations."

Morrison said revealing any information about the technology would violate a federal homeland security law about information-sharing and arms-control laws…

Once you strip out all the panicky trappings, the FBI is basically asserting that it, and the law enforcement agencies it's speaking in support of, should be allowed to do what they like with zero accountability. These agencies want to have the ability to collect massive amounts of data without being slowed by warrant requests or minimization processes.

These exposure fears are unfounded, and those using them to justify withholding information know this. This secrecy has been used to seal returned warrants and court orders on closed investigations, giving lie to the claim that these agencies are concerned about damaging current and future investigatons. And, realistically, the only way terrorists or criminals are going to be able to completely avoid Stingray surveillance is to not use or carry cell phones, something that seems highly unlikely. For this to be any use to them, they would have to know in advance where it's being deployed and when.

The real reason behind the collaborative burial of information is the agencies' desire to do what they want without limitations or paper trails. This sort of behavior should be an indicator of a law enforcement agency that's gone rogue, rather than an all-too-common collaborative effort between local and national government agencies.

Filed Under: cell phones, cell tower spoofing, doj, federal government, freedom of information, spoofing, stingray, transparency, us marshals
Companies: harris

European Medicines Agency Unexpectedly Waters Down Draft Policy On Sharing Drug Safety Data

from the surely-not dept

For some time, Techdirt has been reporting on the attempt to open up critical drug safety information in Europe. Despite fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, in April the European Parliament adopted the Clinical Trials Regulation by a huge majority -- 547 in favor and 17 against. Needless to say, that's not the end of the story. Here's what's happened recently, as reported by the AllTrials site, which has led the campaign for access to this information held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA):

The EMA has produced a further draft of the policy which would introduce barriers to access to clinical trial data that would make the job of researchers who want to scrutinise it almost impossible.

The policy introduces terms of use which say that researchers can access the data on screen only with printing, sharing or saving of the data forbidden.

It allows the company who supplied the data to the EMA to decide which information to redact so researchers may never know what information is being kept hidden.

The EMA's draft policy also asks researchers to agree that the companies who produced the trial data can take legal action directly against the researchers if the trial sponsor considers the researchers broke any of the conditions, introducing a new and unpredictable risk of high legal costs into routine academic work.

Clearly, that's a far cry from the unfettered access that researchers have been seeking, and which the European Parliament has mandated, but which does not come into force until 2016. As a result, the AllTrials groups wrote an open letter to the head of the EMA, explaining why the watered-down draft policy would be "all but useless to independent researchers" because of the unreasonable constraints placed upon their use of the clinical trials data. The EMA chief replied with his own letter (pdf), but as the AllTrials blog politely put it:

his letter does not leave us in a satisfactory place.

A letter was also sent to the EMA by BEUC, an umbrella organization of 41 national consumer groups in Europe. It makes the following important point regarding clinical trials data [pdf]:

The volunteers who take part to clinical trials put their own life at risk of unexpected adverse drug reactions. They do so to contribute to scientific progress for the benefit of society. Therefore the results of the trials belong to them and to society at large . Everybody has the right to access the evidence used by EMA scientific committees to determine the benefits and risks of medicines.

Despite that public-spirited risk-taking by volunteers, pharmaceutical companies are trying to claim the resulting data as "commercially confidential information" that belongs exclusively to them, not to society. The BEUC letter ends by posing an interesting question:

we take this opportunity to ask you to clarify the impact -- if any -- of the settlement with AbbVie on the definition of the new policy.

This refers to the rather mysterious decision of the US pharmaceutical company AbbVie to drop its legal action against the EMA, in which AbbVie had sought to prevent the agency releasing information from clinical trials of its drugs. By an amazing coincidence, the other company suing the EMA, InterMune, has this week also cancelled its own lawsuit. BEUC wonders whether there might be some connection between AbbVie's move and the EMA's unexpected decision to bring out a new -- and neutered -- draft of its data sharing policy. Surely not....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: alltrials, clincial trials, data, drugs, ema, eu, european medicines agency, medicine, pharmaceuticals, transparency

Now That Vodafone Has Come Out With A Real Transparency Report, Will US Telcos Follow Suit?

from the of-course-not dept

On Friday, we reported the surprising fact that Vodafone had not just followed the latest trend in issuing a transparency report, but actually flat out admitted that many governments had direct access to its phone lines, which allowed those governments to listen in on calls without a warrant. That level of transparency is great, because all too often with the "transparency" reports we've seen from some companies, they seem more focused on hiding what's really going on. Too frequently, this is because of requirements from the government, which has (almost certainly illegal and unconstitutional) gag orders on what companies are allowed to say about requests for government information. However, it's almost certainly also because companies are now afraid of admitting the kinds of things they've allowed governments to do in secret -- and are worried about how the public would respond.

However, I'm hopeful that Vodafone's decision to just step up and admit the level of access that governments have had will lead other companies to "come clean" on the sins of their past, and how they've given governments way too much access. Rather than have it leak by a whistleblower, to have the companies step up and admit to exactly what's gone on, while at the same time calling for a change in laws and policies (as Vodafone did) might actually help to restore some confidence that these companies aren't just happily handing over access, but are willing to publicize what's happening and also fight back against the excesses as well.

In the US, for example, it was a remarkable struggle just to get the big telcos to finally agree to issue transparency reports -- and when those transparency reports were released, they were remarkably opaque, rather than transparent. Such a transparency report does little to build confidence in what's happening, and actually breeds greater distrust. Coming clean, saying what's really going on, and how the telcos plan to move forward, seems like the only real way to rebuild any semblance of trust.

Filed Under: surveillance, telcos, transparency
Companies: at&t, verizon, vodafone

US Marshals Step In To Keep Florida Police Department's Stingray Documents Out Of The Hands Of The ACLU

from the big-brother-protected-little-brother dept

The incredible wall of secrecy erected by law enforcement agencies around their use of "stingray" devices (cell tower spoofers) continues. Harris, the manufacturer of most of these devices, gets the secrecy ball rolling with non-disclosure agreements, which law enforcement agencies have liberally interpreted as a right to refuse public records requests and, in one case, an excuse not to seek warrants before deploying the devices.

In a very surprising move, the US government has inserted itself between a Florida police department and the ACLU by seizing requested documents. The ACLU has been seeking information on the Sarasota Police Department's use of cell tower spoofers, only to find itself being further separated from the relevant documents every step of the way.

The reason the ACLU wanted to dig deeper into the Sarasota PD's files presented itself in the first response.

The Sarasota Police initially told us that they had responsive records, including applications filed by and orders issued to a local detective under the state“trap and trace” statute that he had relied on for authorization to conduct stingray surveillance. That raised the first red flag, since trap and trace orders are typically used to gather limited information about the phone numbers of incoming calls, not to track cell phones inside private spaces or conduct dragnet surveillance. And, such orders require a very low legal standard.

Trap and trace/pen register statutes are routinely being abused as a way to route around warrant requirements. The NSA's bulk record collection was partially "justified" by a very liberal reading of pen register statutes. What once was a warrantless, targeted, limited-time collection has now become a catch-all for stingray surveillance and NSA programs.

The Sarasota Police set up an appointment for the ACLU to view its stingray files (as is required under Florida law), but that meeting was cancelled shortly before it was supposed to take place.

[A]n assistant city attorney sent an email cancelling the meeting on the basis that the U.S. Marshals Service was claiming the records as their own and instructing the local cops not to release them. Their explanation: the Marshals Service had deputized the local officer, and therefore the records were actually the property of the federal government.

This interdiction by the US government to lock up documents the ACLU is seeking is astounding enough, but what every other entity involved did is even more so.

Nathan Wessler at the ACLU points out that, US Marshals or no, the police department is required to hold onto any documents requested for at least 30 days. Instead, it allowed the US Marshals to move the records off-site to an undisclosed location. With those files out of reach for an undetermined amount of time, the ACLU approached the court which would have signed off on trap and trace orders requested by the Sarasota Police only to find out that no such records exist.

The court doesn’t even have docket entries indicating that applications were filed or orders issued. Apparently, the local detective came to court with a single paper copy of the application and proposed order, and then walked out with the same papers once signed by a judge.

Another breach of records requirements and, again, tied to the Sarasota PD's stringray usage.

The ACLU has now filed an emergency motion seeking to block the Sarasota PD from turning over any more files to the US Marshals Service. It also asks the court to find that the department violated state law by turning over the requested documents to the US government.

The obvious question here is why both of these agencies are so reluctant to turn over these documents. If they're willing to break state records laws (the local court being complicit in this activity), the information contained must be pretty damaging. What has been discovered already points to the department's deliberate avoidance of a paper trail, what with the single document requests and the misuse of the trap and trace statute to avoid filing warrant requests.

If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, as the saying goes. The government expects us to live by that adage as it deploys warrantless surveillance, but it seems unable to hold itself to the same standard.

Filed Under: federal government, florida, foia, public records, sarasota, sarasota police department, state secrets, sting ray, transparency, us marshals
Companies: aclu

Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are

from the supreme-court-needs-a-public-diff dept

The NY Times has a fascinating article about how the Supreme Court often changes rulings long after they've been released, sometimes changing them significantly, but rarely doing anything to alert the public (or lawyers and legal scholars) of those changes. The article is based on a forthcoming paper by Richard Lazarus on the (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions. While many of the changes are small edits to fix errors, sometimes they can be fairly big deals. In some cases, the errors were so egregious that the change makes news:

Last month, Justice Scalia made a misstep in a dissent in a case involving the E.P.A. Under the heading “Plus ça Change: E.P.A.’s Continuing Quest for Cost-Benefit Authority,” he criticized the agency for seeking such authority in a 2001 case. But he got its position backward. Worse, he was the author of the majority opinion in the 2001 decision.

Law professors pointed out the mistake, and Justice Scalia quickly altered his opinion, revising the text and substituting a bland heading: “Our Precedent.”

But, as the article notes, there are times when these changes slip by almost entirely unnoticed, even when they're considered rather important:

A sentence in a 2003 concurrence from Justice O’Connor in a gay rights decision, Lawrence v. Texas, has been deleted from the official record. She had said Justice Scalia “apparently agrees” that a Texas law making gay sex a crime could not be reconciled with the court’s equal protection principles.

Lower court judges debated the statement, and law professors used it in teaching the case. The statement continues to appear in Internet archives like Findlaw and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

But it has vanished from the official version published in 2006 and from the one available on Lexis, a legal database.

In another case, the article notes that even the version of a ruling on the Supreme Court's own website is outdated.

This is an easy problem for the Supreme Court to fix: they should make their change page open to the public and post the diff whenever they make a change, so that anyone can quickly see how a change was made. But they don't do this. While the Supreme Court does have change pages that show all the revisions, they are blocked from public view, and only four private legal publishers are given access. There is simply no reason for this, and it again leads to a situation where we have private, secret law, rather than a public law. It's a dangerous and shameful practice, and one that the Supreme Court could easily end tomorrow. It should do so.

Filed Under: changes, diffs, laws, legal scholars, rulings, secrecy, supreme court, transparency

Should Revealing Fracking's Chemicals Be A Crime?

from the something-to-hide? dept

The use of hydraulic fracturing -- aka fracking -- to extract gas is a controversial practice, with opinions divided on its risks and benefits. But irrespective of those differences, you might have expected people to be united on the need for health and safety to be a priority. But in North Carolina it seems that they see things differently, as this story in Newsweek explains:

A bill introduced in the North Carolina Senate would charge individuals with a felony if they disclose trade secret-protected information about fracking chemicals, EnergyWire reported Thursday. The bill includes a provision that would allow emergency first responders like fire chiefs and doctors to obtain the chemical information in an emergency. But information disclosed outside of emergency settings could land an offender in prison for several months.

It's not clear why the chemicals used for fracking should be secret in the first place, since that makes it hard for public health authorities to monitor the environmental and health impacts of fracking on local communities -- although a cynic might suspect that's a feature, not a bug, as far as the industry is concerned. The latter's justification for secrecy certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny:

Large amounts of chemical fluid, water and sand must be injected into a fracking well to fracture underground rock and let gas flow from otherwise hard to reach deposits. That fluid can be made from a number of different chemicals. In many cases, fracking companies claim that disclosing their ingredient list, in whole or in part, would damage their ability to compete in the market.

Whatever those mysterious chemicals might be, there's no doubt that they can be lethal for the people working with them:

Much is still unknown about the health effects of fracking. Water samples taken near fracking sites have found elevated levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health wrote that at least four well workers have died since 2010 due to "acute chemical exposure" from flow-back fluid at fracking sites.

What's particularly worrying about North Carolina's proposal is that it seeks to establish that "trade secrets" trump things like health and safety. Nor is it unique in this respect: as we've reported, the pharma industry is fighting efforts to make key clinical trials data available for independent analysis on the grounds that such test data is confidential -- again, asserting that this would outweigh public health concerns.

All these are part of a larger move to create yet another class of powerful corporate rights alongside patents, copyright and trademarks. That's clear from the proposal to include greater protection for trade secrets in agreements like TAFTA/TTIP and TPP. Indeed, for the latter, we know from the leaked intellectual property chapter that there are proposals for the disclosure of every kind of trade secret to be criminalized, not just ones about fracking's toxic cocktails.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: chemicals, fracking, free speech, north carolina, transparency

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