AP Journalists: The NYPD 'Less Transparent' Than CIA, FBI And NSA When It Comes To FOI Requests

from the ray-kelly-states-info-needs-to-be-pried-from-his-cold,-live-fingers dept

According to the investigative journalists Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, the entity most reluctant to part ways with information isn't any of the expected national intelligence agencies. No, the entity least likely to kick loose a response to a FOI request is none other than the NYPD.

“For the most part, they don’t respond,” Apuzzo, 34, said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “I don’t think people are well-served by that. Even the NSA responds.”

“Even the CIA responds,” Goldman, 42, jumped in. “Even the FBI responds.”

Incredibly, this is an improvement over the Giuliani years.

Bob Liff, a former reporter and Democratic political consultant, said the public’s right to know may not be perfectly served under Bloomberg, but it has vastly improved from his predecessor’s time.

“I don’t doubt that there’s always a battle over controversial information,” Liff said. “But under Rudy, the battle was over basic information. That’s a significant distinction.”

Thanks to the oft-thwarted efforts of Apuzzo and Goldman, we now have an answer as to why New York is referred to as the "city that never sleeps." It's because it's up all night crafting narratives.

The "public is not well-served by a police department that doesn’t allow you access to 911 calls or public records, police reports" and then "produces their own summaries of cases for you to look at, but doesn’t let you get access to the underlying documents,” Apuzzo added later.

“The NYPD is deciding what’s news,” Goldman said.

Apuzzo and Goldman have had plenty of experience with the NYPD, having exposed the department's highly questionable surveillance tactics deployed after the 9/11 attacks, along with breaking the news that a former high-ranking CIA officer was running the so-called Demographics Unit. This unit has designated entire mosques as "terrorist operations" and operates under a loophole in the laws governing police investigations -- a generous loophole manufactured by the former CIA agent himself.

The powers granted to this unit are so audacious that national intelligence agencies are unable to utilize the information collected without breaking national civil liberties laws.

The NYPD's protection of its own info seems almost antagonistic. As we've covered earlier, the NYPD has rejected FOI requests for everything from weapons discharge reports to Ray Kelly's official calendar. The city of New York isn't much better, as Mike Masnick can personally attest.

There's an insularity to New York that outsiders have trouble permeating. The city is unlike any other in the US, and the residents and ingrained institutions know it. Most people don't have what it takes to get past its callous exterior and those who try are often rebuffed simply on principle. The mayor's office and police department have had each other's back throughout Bloomberg's tenure, which isn't too surprising considering the NYPD has been very instrumental in the mayor's micromanagement of the city and its inhabitants.

But this "we protect our own" attitude extends into the journalistic ranks as well, which is extremely problematic when the police department is already doing everything it can to prevent the release of unflattering information. Apuzzo and Goldman's investigative work was greeted with reactions ranging from harsh criticism to complete indifference by New York papers.

The city’s top tabloid newspapers, the New York Post and Daily News, editorialized against the AP's NYPD series in 2011, and The New York Times did little follow-up reporting on the revelations and newly published documents.

"It was extremely surprising to us that putting a former CIA officer in charge of the NYPD intelligence division and creating what’s been created generated so little attention at the time," Apuzzo said.

That should have been a big deal and New York journalist should have been the ones informing their local readers about the abuses occurring in the name of "security" -- and at the behest of a former CIA officer. But they didn't, instead entertaining the mayor's assertions that everything the department did was legal, above board and not a violation of anyone's rights.

Bloomberg, like President Obama, promised greater transparency. And like the president, he's failed to follow through. Worse, this isn't simply a case of neglect -- both have taken great strides in the direction of opacity. And as for those New York journalists who criticized the pair's work, they need to take a good, long look at their own complicity in the NYPD's overreach.

Filed Under: adam goldman, foia, matt apuzzo, nypd, transparency

The NSA Needs To Get In Front Of The Leaks: Stop Lying And Open Up

from the only-way-to-regain-trust dept

Bruce Schneier has yet another interesting article over at The Atlantic, in which he notes that the only real way for the NSA to regain trust is to get in front of the coming leaks by finally opening up. He makes a compelling case. First off, every time the NSA has tried to defend various leaks, its defenses have been shown to be lies or, at the very least, misleading, just days later. This is, in large part, because it still doesn't seem to have any idea what Snowden took. And in its usual fashion, it seems to hope that if it just keeps lying, or redefining words, that it will be able to get away with keeping stuff hidden. But that's clearly not working, and the public has pretty much lost all trust. The only real way to deal with that is to finally be honest for once. That doesn't mean making everything public, but having someone who can look through everything and see what's really going on.

It's time to start cleaning up this mess. We need a special prosecutor, one not tied to the military, the corporations complicit in these programs, or the current political leadership, whether Democrat or Republican. This prosecutor needs free rein to go through the NSA's files and discover the full extent of what the agency is doing, as well as enough technical staff who have the capability to understand it. He needs the power to subpoena government officials and take their sworn testimony. He needs the ability to bring criminal indictments where appropriate. And, of course, he needs the requisite security clearance to see it all.

We also need something like South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where both government and corporate employees can come forward and tell their stories about NSA eavesdropping without fear of reprisal.

Now, obviously, some will claim that there's so much the NSA does that needs to be kept secret -- and, that's true. Except for one little tidbit: Ed Snowden already walked out the door with much of this stuff and gave it to reporters. Meaning that most of it isn't likely to be kept secret very long. And that's why this is the only reasonable course of action, even if it goes against the NSA's general DNA.

Yes, this will overturn the paradigm of keeping everything the NSA does secret, but Snowden and the reporters he's shared documents with have already done that. The secrets are going to come out, and the journalists doing the outing are not going to be sympathetic to the NSA. If the agency were smart, it'd realize that the best thing it could do would be to get ahead of the leaks.

The result needs to be a public report about the NSA's abuses, detailed enough that public watchdog groups can be convinced that everything is known. Only then can our country go about cleaning up the mess: shutting down programs, reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act system, and reforming surveillance law to make it absolutely clear that even the NSA cannot eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

In many ways, this is like the difference between real security and security by obscurity. If the NSA is confident in what it's doing and why it's necessary, it should be able to come out and show what's really happening, and the public can take an educated position on whether or not it's appropriate.

Filed Under: bruce schneier, ed snowden, investigation, lies, nsa, nsa surveillance, secrecy, transparency

State AG Says It's OK Ohio Implemented Facial Recognition Program Without Notifying Public Because Everyone Else Is Doing It

from the the-fundamental-disconnect-between-public-and-public-servants dept

Facial recognition software is controversial, to say the least. The privacy implications run deep even when deployed in very public areas, as it basically allows for suspicionless searches of anyone whose face is visible to cameras. The feet-on-the-ground equivalent would be having officers canvass a public area, grabbing IDs from anyone it wishes and running their records. Pretty much unacceptable, even considering the potential upside of the software to catch suspected criminals or stumble upon people with outstanding warrants.

These issues haven't prevented more than half of our nation's states from rolling out some version of facial recognition databases. That doesn't make what Ohio law enforcement did right, although its main defender actually uses that exact justification to answer criticism of the roll out.

Without informing the public and without first reviewing security rules for the system, Ohio law enforcement officers started using facial recognition technology more than two months ago, scanning databases of driver's license photos and police mug shots to identify crime suspects, The Enquirer has learned.

This is fairly common with controversial measures like these: deploy first, ask for permission/set guidelines later. We've seen the same thing happen repeatedly, whether its domestic drone use or the deployment of quasi-legal technology like Stingray devices that mimic cell phone towers. This isn't purely a local phenomenon. National agencies are just as prone to rolling out new methods and devices, and only begin to consider privacy implications or the need to establish guidelines after a public outcry, much as (almost) happened here.

Ohio's new facial recognition system launched June 6, without the knowledge of the attorney general or his chief operating officer. Upon learning about it two weeks later, after it had already been used for 900 facial recognition searches, top officials debated turning it off.

On June 20, during a meeting with DeWine, Chief Operating Officer Kimberly Murnieks sent an urgent e-mail to DeWine's chief information officer and top deputies: "First question: Can we turn this off for now? I am told it has been 'live' for two weeks. Who approved that go live?"

No approval. No period for public comment. No notification to the top cop in the state, or any other top official for that matter. Ohio's law enforcement agencies simply decided to go autonomous, claiming that it was an "almost IT-driven thing." Yep. Completely unstoppable. IT informed the heads of Ohio's Bureau of Criminal Investigation that the system was ready to go live -- and that was all the top Bureau officials needed to hear. The "on" button was pushed and a briefing with the state AG was set up… for two weeks later -- after 900 searches had already been performed.

In the June 20 briefing with DeWine, officials quickly adopted a practice of calling the launch a "test" although some continued to be nervous about whether the system should have been launched before new policies were created.

COO Murnieks suggested the system be taken offline until policies updated, but apparently, the "off" button was nowhere to be found. The system stayed online. While the COO seemed suitably concerned that facial recognition technology was being deployed without public notification or pertinent policies in place, AG DeWine was more blasé about the whole experience, deflecting criticism using the elementary-school-level "well, everyone else is doing it" argument.

Before June 20, "I didn't know it was up live, but I wasn't concerned that it was up live," DeWine said. "Whether you call it a test phase or don't call it a test phase, if we find something (wrong), we would change it, and if we find something alarming, we would shut it down. ...

"The fact that over half of states use (facial recognition technology), the fact that the FBI has used it, the fact that we have controls in (the online database) that work in the sense that we could prosecute people ... all of those indicate to me that what we have is adequate."

Of all the poor logic contained in these statements, all of it stands out as being particularly idiotic. Every single bit. DeWine may believe two wrongs don't make a right, but apparently a handful of wrongs adds up just fine.

DeWine feels it's perfectly acceptable to make mistakes that could affect seriously members of the public. Not only that, but he seems to feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the public as a testing ground without even providing them a safety net of applicable data policies, safeguards or scope limitations. Pointing to other states, many of whom rolled out their programs more responsibly, is nothing more than verbal sleight-of-hand designed to diffuse outrage. (Notice I didn't say "defuse." What he's doing is spreading the blame, not placating the masses.)

And I have absolutely no idea what this phrase is supposed to mean, other than the prosecution side is always right:

...the fact that we have controls in (the online database) that work in the sense that we could prosecute people..

Because it can be used to catch "bad guys," all else is negligible? Really? If so, when you're done with screwing over your own constituents, there's probably a prime spot in the NYPD for you. They like people who prize crime statistics above all else, even the Constitution.

Plus, he's happy with everything being "adequate." That's a government official for you -- never strive for more than you can obtain via stasis.

DeWine led off the previous statement by saying the program simultaneously is and isn't a "test phase," and followed it up by telling everyone why it really doesn't matter what "phase" the program's currently in.

He said the system is still in a trial phase, but said its scope or use isn't expected to change after the trial period ends.

Great. So the minimal nod towards stress-testing the system meant nothing. Good to know. DeWine caps this all off by throwing a chewed-almost-beyond-recognition bone to the public's concerns.

"Should we have talked about it the day it went live?" DeWine said of the facial recognition system. "You could argue that."

We are arguing that, you dolt. The problem is you, and many others like you (say, the heads of the Ohio's law enforcement agencies), can't be bothered to check with the public until it's thrusting microphones in your face or calling at all hours demanding an explanation. You and many others like you (say, the heads of the state's law enforcement agencies) are public servants. Apparently, the COO of the state is the only one actually looking out for the people she's serving. The rest of you all figure you know better and can roll out controversial programs without so much as obligatory "here's what we're doing: deal with it" press release. Because crime.

Is it any wonder no one trusts the government?

Filed Under: face recognition, facial recognition, law enforcement, mike dewine, ohio, privacy, transparency

Desperate To Sew Up TPP Negotiations At Any Cost, Politicians Agree All Future Meetings Will Be Completely Secret

from the slap-in-the-public's-face dept

We've been reporting for several years about the extraordinary levels of secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, where little information was released about what was going on, and there were few opportunities for representatives of civic and other groups to meet with negotiators to present their point of view. More recently, there have been some indications that this lack of transparency is fuelling increasing discontent among some of the participating nations.

In order to get the trade deal sewn up by the end of this year, and before resistance spreads further, the negotiators have decided to hold 'inter-sessional' meetings for the remaining unresolved areas. But as this article from Scoop explains, these won't be like routine TPP meetings, with their routinely unhelpful levels of opacity:

Detective work indicates that informal 'inter-sessional' meetings on six chapters are scheduled within the next four weeks -- all in North America.

' "Inter-sessional" is a misnomer', says Professor Kelsey, 'because they are not planning any more formal sessions. There will be no access for the media or stakeholders to these smaller meetings.'

'Past inter-sessionals have been shrouded in secrecy to ensure we can't find out what's happening and we don't have access to those negotiators who see value in talking with us.'

'The last three years of the TPPA have been widely condemned for their lack of transparency. The process is now going further underground'.

That is, rather than opening up TPP in response to widening criticisms, its negotiators will now be meeting in complete secret, presumably until they emerge with some kind of a deal, however bad. Since no information will be released about those gatherings behind closed doors, and there will be no opportunities to convey concerns to the participants, the public in whose name all these talks are taking place will have no way of knowing what is going on or of offering its views. It's the ultimate in arrogant, "we know best" negotiations where citizens are expected to accept what is given, no discussion allowed.

The last time this approach was used on this scale was for ACTA, which was ultimately rejected, largely because the European public took to the streets to express its outrage at the contempt being shown towards it by the negotiators. Interestingly, in Colombia people are already taking to the streets to protest against the effects of free trade agreements with the US, Europe and Canada, at least in part. Do the governments participating in the now-secret TPP negotiations really want to risk the same happening in their own countries?

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

Filed Under: intellectual property, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

DOJ Still Refuses To Let Tech Companies Reveal How Much Info They Get Via FISA Orders

from the of-course dept

So, last night Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the administration will start releasing some data on how many FISA records it seeks, and how many "targets" there are. In a first draft of that post, I had originally speculated that this hopefully meant the various tech companies could finally add FISA request numbers to their transparency reports, as they'd requested. However, after reading Clapper's statement carefully, it seemed fairly obvious that what they were releasing was a lot more limited than what the tech companies have been asking for -- including the number of people impacted. Given that, I removed the paragraph about how it might impact tech companies, because it seemed likely that the feds weren't actually going to allow the tech companies to reveal some basic metadata about the FISA requests they receive. Indeed, today was the (many times extended) deadline for the DOJ to respond to the legal filings by various tech companies to publish those numbers, and it appears that the DOJ has officially turned down the request.

Microsoft wasted little time this morning before speaking out on its blog and stating that this was unacceptable, and that it would continue the legal fight.

On six occasions in recent weeks we agreed with the Department of Justice to extend the Government’s deadline to reply to these lawsuits. We hoped that these discussions would lead to an agreement acceptable to all. While we appreciate the good faith and earnest efforts by the capable Government lawyers with whom we negotiated, we are disappointed that these negotiations ended in failure.

Yesterday, the Government announced that it would begin publishing the total number of national security requests for customer data for the past 12 months and do so going forward once a year. The Government’s decision represents a good start. But the public deserves and the Constitution guarantees more than this first step.

For example, we believe it is vital to publish information that clearly shows the number of national security demands for user content, such as the text of an email. These figures should be published in a form that is distinct from the number of demands that capture only metadata such as the subscriber information associated with a particular email address. We believe it’s possible to publish these figures in a manner that avoids putting security at risk. And unless this type of information is made public, any discussion of government practices and service provider obligations will remain incomplete.

Given this, Microsoft (and, it appears, Google) are planning to continue to fight this in the courts, arguing that they have a First Amendment right to publish this information. This lawsuit is going to be very, very important:

With the failure of our recent negotiations, we will move forward with litigation in the hope that the courts will uphold our right to speak more freely. And with a growing discussion on Capitol Hill, we hope Congress will continue to press for the right of technology companies to disclose relevant information in an appropriate way.

The United States has long been admired around the world for its leadership in promoting free speech and open discussion. We benefit from living in a country with a Constitution that guarantees the fundamental freedom to engage in free expression unless silence is required by a narrowly tailored, compelling Government interest. We believe there remains a path forward that will share more information with the public while protecting national security. Our hope is that the courts and Congress will ensure that our Constitutional safeguards prevail.

Filed Under: doj, first amendment, fisa, nsa, transparency
Companies: google, microsoft

Canadian Member Of Parliament, Responsible For Opposition Trade Policy, Denied Access To TPP Negotiations

from the that-doesn't-sound-right dept

Defenders of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations in the US like to note that every member of Congress has access to the negotiating documents of the massive trade agreement. Of course, that's not telling the full story. While lobbyist "advisers" like those from the MPAA can simply log into an online account and see the details from their personal computers, members of Congress have to go to the USTR office, where they can see a copy of the document, but they're not allowed to bring any staffers (such as those who are experts on trade policy), nor are they allowed to make any copies or take any notes.

However, it appears that up in Canada, things may be even more ridiculous. Don Davies is a Canadian Member of Parliament who notes that he's been denied access to information about the ongoing TPP negotiations, of which Canada is supposedly a member:

“The TPP is a sweeping agreement covering issues that affect many areas of Canada’s economy and society – including several areas of policy that have never been subject to trade agreements before,” said Davies. “By keeping Parliament completely in the dark on negotiations the Conservatives also leave Canadians in the dark and, for an agreement of this magnitude that is abnormal and unacceptable.

“If the US can allow its legislators to see the TPP text, there is no reason that Canada can’t,” Davies said.

In this case, it's doubly ridiculous. Davies is a member of the NDP party, which is not in power, but his role is as the Official Opposition Critic for International Trade. In other words, he's basically the trade policy expert for the NDP, and as such, you'd think he should at the very least be included in the details of ongoing negotiations. Yet again, though, it seems that the main negotiating parties involved in the TPP have realized that the best way to get across an agreement they like is to keep it as secretive and non-transparent as possible, especially from critics. This is the exact opposite of how democratic governments are supposed to work.

Of course, the addition of Canada to the TPP has always been done in a way to keep our neighbor up north as a silent partner to the US's position. You may recall that the US didn't let Canada join until well into the negotiating process, and as part of the invite, Canada was told that it had to accept all negotiated text without question, even though it wasn't allowed to see it yet. And, related to that, they had to agree to future texts during some meetings where they weren't allowed to attend. To now find out that the Conservative Party, which is currently in power, is going even further and blocking the opposition from having any visibility at all into the agreement is just ridiculous.

Filed Under: access, canada, don davies, ndp, tpp, transparency

What NSA Transparency Looks Like: [Redacted]

from the that's-not-transparency dept

A couple weeks ago, the Washington Post published an internal audit finding the NSA had violated privacy rules thousands of times in recent years.

In response, the spy agency held a rare conference call for the press maintaining that the violations are "not willful" and "not malicious."

It's difficult to fully evaluate the NSA's track record, since the agency has been so tight-lipped on the topic.

What information about rule violations has the agency itself released? Take a look:

That is the publicly released version of a semiannual report from the administration to Congress describing NSA violations of rules surrounding the FISA Amendments Act. The act is one of the key laws governing NSA surveillance, including now-famous programs like Prism.

As an oversight measure, the law requires the attorney general to submit semiannual reports to the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees.

The section with the redactions above is titled "Statistical Data Relating to Compliance Incidents."

One of the only unredacted portions reads, "The value of statistical information in assessing compliance in situations such as this is unclear. A single incident, for example, may have broad ramifications. Multiple incidents may increase the incident count, but may be deemed of very limited significance."

The document, dated May 2010, was released after the ACLU filed a freedom of information lawsuit.  

As the Post noted, members of Congress can read the unredacted version of the semiannual reports, but only in a special secure room. They cannot take notes or publicly discuss what they read.

A few days later, the Obama Administration declassified the most recent version of the semiannual report to Congress and posted it online. The document includes some information about rates of "compliance incidents" but is also heavily redacted.

For more on the NSA, see our story on how the agency says it can't search its own emails, and what we know about the agency's tapping of Internet cables. 

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, redacted, transparency

When Transparency Is A Matter Of Life And Death

from the spread-the-word-not-the-disease dept

Against a background of the leaks about NSA spying, transparency -- or lack of it -- is a hot topic at the moment. But there are situations where it can be even more important than just a matter of enhancing confidence in government actions and acting as a check on them, as this Wired story about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) makes clear:

The virus is new, recorded in humans for the first time in mid-2012. It is dire, having killed more than half of those who contracted it. And it is mysterious, far more so than it should be -- because Saudi Arabia, where the majority of cases have clustered, has been tight-lipped about the disease's spread, responding slowly to requests for information and preventing outside researchers from publishing their findings about the syndrome.

In fact, it's even worse than that. Researchers had hoped one new technique would allow them to track nascent epidemics and pandemics in the face of government reticence to admit there is a problem is to monitor casual online discussions about outbreaks of illness. But even that's failing here:

public-health researchers have believed that Internet chatter -- patterns of online discussion about disease -- would undercut any attempts at secrecy. But they've been disappointed to see that their web-scraping tools have picked up remarkably little from the Middle East: While Saudi residents certainly use the Internet, what they can access is stifled, and what they are willing to say appears muted.

That's a clear demonstration of how lack of transparency, when coupled with pervasive censorship and knock-on self-censorship, can have much wider implications than simply blocking the free flow of information.

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

Filed Under: health, mers, middle east, safety, transparency, virus

White House Tried To Interfere With Washington Post's Report, And To Change Quotes From NSA

from the not-the-crime,-but-the-cover-up dept

Among the many, many incredible revelations from the Washington Post report on the abuses by the NSA is a tidbit about an interview that the Post was able to do with the NSA's director of compliance, John DeLong, followed by the White House's attempt to completely whitewash the interview and block his quotes from being used, despite the Post being told otherwise initially:

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong.

Read that again. This is the same White House that has been saying that they want to be as transparent as possible and to rebuild trust. And yet, here they are trying to block the Post from using an interview -- an interview they suggested in the first place -- and then to replace it with a bland and bogus "statement."

Filed Under: journalism, nsa, quotes, transparency

Obama's Response To NSA Surveillance: Some Minor Reforms & Transparency; Still Lacking Justification

from the uh,-not-good-enough dept

President Obama just gave a press conference in which he announced a four step "response" to the public's concerns over the revelations of NSA surveillance. He continued to defend the basic program, even referring to his public record concerns back when he was a Senator. He further claims that prior to Snowden's leaks he'd already ordered a full review of these programs (of course that was all in secret) and Snowden's leaks merely "accelerated" the process (while also, Obama claimed, putting our national security "at risk"). However, he admits that -- while disturbed about Snowden's leaks -- he recognizes the public's concerns over NSA surveillance and the fact that there is a history of "abuses" when there are "great capabilities" for surveillance. As such, he's proposing a four-pronged plan to defend the programs, reform them slightly, and increase transparency to build up trust.

1. Consider some "reforms" of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, and will reveal more details of the government's secret legal interpretation under Section 215 that allows them to hoover up all data on every communication. That document has been released, and will be discussed in a future post.
2. Improve "public confidence" in the FISA court (FISC) with greater transparency about FISC decisions and support for a civil liberties advocate playing a role in "appropriate cases" so that the judges don't just hear from one side. This reform has been suggested a few times and isn't a terrible one, but does have some logistical problems.
3. Set up a website to increase transparency. Yeah, sure.
4. Set up a group of "outside experts" to review the whole program. Seems a bit late for that.

That's about it. Note that there are precious few specifics. It's a lot of rhetoric about transparency, with a few random claims about how important these programs are. Separately, he continued to insist that we're better than some other countries (setting the bar low) and that we don't spy on Americans -- despite the evidence from this morning that this isn't true.

In answering questions, he insisted the two key programs being discussed, Section 215 of the Patriot Act and 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, were critical to finding important intelligence -- despite the fact that multiple Senators have insisted that there remains no evidence that Section 215 was necessary in any terrorist case.

All in all this seems like a PR scramble by the an administration that realizes it's on the losing side of the public debate. The promises seem pretty weak and hollow. The idea that he was already moving in this direction before the Snowden leaks is simply laughable. Section 702 was just renewed eight months ago and his administration fought very hard against any detailed analysis and any amendment to the law. Reality just doesn't support these claims.

Filed Under: fisa court, fisc, nsa, nsa surveillance, partiot act, president obama, section 215, section 702, transparency