Senate Introduces Its Version Of USA Freedom Act; Greatly Improved, But Could Still Be Better

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

As was widely expected, Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced the new Senate version of the USA Freedom Act. As you recall, there was a semi-decent bill in the House that had made it pretty far, before being completely gutted by the White House. From what we've heard, the Senate has been negotiating with the White House pretty intensely over the past month or so, and has taken a stance that it would not give in the way the House did. The end result is a much stronger bill than what the House passed -- and one that actually would block some of the NSA's more nefarious activities. As Access notes, there is much to like about the new bill, which is almost as good as the original USA Freedom Act in the House from last fall.

That's not to say it's perfect. As with the original USA Freedom Act, the reforms only go so far, and it leaves much to be desired. There are also some big and dangerous loopholes that are quite problematic. As some have noted, there's some good, bad and ugly in the bill.

However, if this bill moves forward it still would be a very big step forward and a significant effort to push back on the intelligence community's domestic surveillance efforts. There's still a process that it needs to go through, including getting approved by the full Senate (the rumor is it may skip the whole committee markup/approval process), and then getting reconciled with the House version (oh, yeah, and getting the President to sign it). Anywhere along the way, there may be efforts to water it down, as happened with the House bill. However, given all the negotiations that we've heard went into this, there's at least some belief that something very close to what was introduced today has a real chance -- and that's a good thing. This bill also has strong bipartisan support, including support by some powerful Senators who rarely agree on much. That's a good sign.

Even if you think -- as we do -- that much more needs to be done, there are reasons to support this bill as a stepping stone in the right direction and real pushback on the ability of the NSA to do mass surveillance.

Filed Under: nsa, patrick leahy, senate, surveillance, usa freedom act, white house

Former CIA Boss George Tenet Leading Plans To Attack Upcoming Senate Report On CIA's Torture Program

from the it-will-impact-his-legacy dept

As we continue to wait for the White House to finally release the heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA torture report (the full report is over 6,300 pages and cost $40 million to produce), it appears that those who are likely to take the blame are already preparing their response. As has already leaked out over the past few months, the report will show how the program went further than people expected, that it basically uncovered no terrorist plots and that the CIA regularly lied to Congress about the nature of the program and its impact. The CIA, led by current boss John Brennan, has hit back against these conclusions, but it appears that those who were actually in power during the torture program are even more worried. Former CIA boss George Tenet, who was already considered something of a disgrace for the CIA's intelligence failures prior to invading Iraq, is apparently working hard behind the scenes to coordinate an attack on the credibility of the report -- because it pretty clearly is going to attack his credibility.

Just after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted in April to declassify hundreds of pages of a withering report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program, C.I.A. Director John O. Brennan convened a meeting of the men who had played a role overseeing the program in its seven-year history.

The spies, past and present, faced each other around the long wooden conference table on the seventh floor of the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Northern Virginia: J. Cofer Black, head of the agency’s counterterrorism center at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks; the undercover officer who now holds that job; and a number of other former officials from the C.I.A.’s clandestine service. Over the speakerphone came the distinctive, Queens-accented voice of George J. Tenet.

Over the past several months, Mr. Tenet has quietly engineered a counterattack against the Senate committee’s voluminous report, which could become public next month.

Apparently Tenet and others demanded early access to the report, and eventually Dianne Feinstein, the White House and those former CIA officials negotiated a deal letting them read the report over in James Clapper's offices. The NY Times report also details how Brennan is basically a Tenet lackey whose rise through the ranks occurred under Tenet -- making it more likely that Brennan wants to protect the reputation of his former boss.

We'll see how this eventual "response" comes out, but given the initial leaks from the report, it sounds like it's going to be fairly devastating, and make a further mockery of Tenet. As the report linked above also notes, back in 2007 Tenet got angry at a 60 Minutes interviewer and started wagging his finger at the correspondent, while insisting "We don't torture people!"

Wagging a finger at the correspondent, Scott Pelley, Mr. Tenet said over and over, “We don’t torture people.”

“No, listen to me. No, listen to me. I want you to listen to me,” he went on. “Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: The palpable fear that we felt on the basis of that fact that there was so much we did not know. I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots.”

It's pretty easy to say that when no one can fact-check you. But it appears that the report is going to point out that almost none of what Tenet said was true. No wonder he's so concerned about leading the attack on the report.

Filed Under: cia, dianne feinstein, george tenet, john brennan, senate intelligence committee, torture report, white house

Administration 'Answers' Tesla Direct Sales Petition With A Brief 'No' And Several Paragraphs Of Self-Congratulatory Text

from the the-question-was-about-Tesla,-but-let's-hear-about-YOUR-thing dept

The administration still doesn't want to talk about pardoning Ed Snowden or reforming the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act), but it has stepped up to cherry pick another petition from the pile over at We The People. The petition, which asks for the government to step in and force states to allow Tesla to sell its cars directly to customers, was created more than a year ago. That puts it right on pace for petition answers, which still average nearly 300 days from the date of creation.

The petition is a little misguided but is an understandable response to state after state protecting incumbent car dealerships by attempting to force Tesla to sell through an established middleman. The amount of tax revenue generated by successful dealerships makes it very hard for state politicians to say "no." It's become so common over the past few years that the introduction of Tesla-targeting legislation is a fairly accurate barometer of political corruption.

The petition is simple: force states to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers. The problem is that the Administration can't rewrite state laws on the fly.

Thanks for your We the People petition. We're excited about the next generation of transportation choices, including the kind of electric vehicles that Tesla and others have developed. These companies are taking steps to help spur innovation in the promising area of advanced batteries and electric automobiles. Vehicle electrification and other advanced technologies are vital components of President Obama's Climate Action Plan, and his commitment to addressing climate change and reducing carbon pollution, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil.

But as you know, laws regulating auto sales are issues that have traditionally sat with lawmakers at the state level.

We believe in the goal of improving consumer choice for American families, including more vehicles that provide savings at the pump for consumers. However, we understand that pre-empting current state laws on direct-to-consumer auto sales would require an act of Congress.

So, the problem must be handled through our nation's legislators or at state level in each individual state. Neither option is very palatable. State legislators are in no hurry to lose revenue by obliging an upstart (no matter how much its constituents may desire another option) and legislators in DC are no less likely to cater to established entities and their tax dollars/contributions.

But let's not waste too much more time discussing the low-level corruption that prevents new entrants into markets. Let's hear some more about the administration's exciting Climate Action Plan, because that's cleary what Dan Utech, "Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change," really wants to talk about. (Questions concerning the administration's decision to send an energy/climate change advisor to answer an auto sales regulation petition will also presumably go unanswered.)

We are already making significant progress in promoting vehicle efficiency: new vehicle fuel economy has increased by 12% since 2008 and consumers now can choose from five times more car models with a combined city/highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or more, compared to just five years ago. In December 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that model year 2012 vehicles achieved an all-time high fuel economy, after increasing seven of the last eight years...

Thanks, Dan, but we were hoping you could address consumers' interests being ignored by government—

The President has taken historic action to spur more consumer choice -- saving consumers money at the pump and reducing our dependence on oil. Here are some of the ways we're helping to encourage the future generation of energy-efficient cars…

…and so on for another three paragraphs. Five out of seven paragraphs are nothing more than the administration very sincerely congratulating itself for being so awesome and forward-thinking. Very little deals with the actual petition, but I guess we should be grateful it was acknowledged at all.

The final paragraph attempts to portray the government as innovation's best friend:

As these initiatives show, the Administration is in favor of fostering competition in the market to help spur the kinds of innovation needed to support ongoing U.S. leadership in vehicle manufacturing and a potential range of new technologies.

Maybe the administration (or at least Dan Utech) is truly "in favor of fostering competition in the market," but the government is the government is the government. Consumers want more options, established businesses want consumers to have fewer, and all too frequently the "government," whether it's local, state or national, sides with those on the established side. The administration can't force states to change laws, but it could at least offer something better in response than a press release masquerading as an "answer."

Filed Under: auto dealers, direct sales, innovation, white house
Companies: tesla

White House Spokesperson Insists Obama Is The Most Transparent President In History, Because... Visitor Logs!

from the you-said-what-now? dept

The rather astoundingly named Josh Earnest is the recently appointed press secretary of President Obama, and he's kicked off his tenure with quite a whopper: insisting that, despite complaints from basically every corner, President Obama really is "the most transparent President in history." As you may recall, President Obama promised upon election that he would be "the most open and transparent" President, and one of his first orders of business in the White House was to promise the same.

Of course, as many folks have been documenting for years, the reality has been anything but. The Obama administration has been ridiculously secretive for years, when it comes to FOIA requests, literally setting records in denying them. The NYT's former executive editor, who has covered many administrations, has directly noted that the Obama administration was the most secretive she could recall. Even federal judges have regularly dinged the administration for refusing to hand over documents required by law. As Stephen Colbert has noted, the administration is really only good at the most transparent bullshit legally allowed.

In fact, just as Mr. Earnest was insisting that the Obama administration was so damn transparent, Mother Jones had a good article about how often the Obama administration was making use of the "state secrets privilege" to get lawsuits tossed out, such as in various no fly list challenges. In 2008, then candidate Obama insisted that the use of the state secrets privilege by the government was dangerous. But, now that he's in charge, he's quick to use it himself:

In 2008, Obama griped that the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege "more than any other previous administration" and used it to get entire lawsuits thrown out of court. Critics noted that deploying the state secrets privilege allowed the Bush administration to shut down cases that might have revealed government misconduct or caused embarrassment, including those regarding constitutionally dubious warrantless wiretapping and the CIA's kidnapping and torture of Khaled el-Masri, a German car salesman the government had mistaken for an alleged Al Qaeda leader with the same name. After Obama took office, his attorney general, Eric Holder, promised to significantly limit the use of this controversial legal doctrine. Holder vowed never to use it to "conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error" or "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government."

Despite this promise, Obama continued to assert the privilege to squelch cases about Bush-era abuses. In one instance, the Justice Department scuttled a lawsuit brought by a man who claimed he had been kidnapped by the CIA and had his penis and testicles cut with a scalpel in a Moroccan prison. And now Obama is broadening the use of this legal maneuver: In the past 18 months, the Obama administration has twice cited state secrets to prevent federal courts from considering lawsuits challenging its use of the no-fly list.

So, given all this evidence that the Obama administration is incredibly secretive, what could Earnest's reasoning possibly be? Well, you see, President Obama has released his visitor logs at the White House. Because, you know, that's what everyone really means when they talk about White House transparency.

Earnest noted that previous administrations had “gone to the Supreme Court” to prevent the release of White House visitor information, but that the Obama administration “releases it voluntarily on the Internet on a quarterly basis.”

“Reporters for years clamored to get access to fundraisers the president hosted or attended that were hosted in private homes,” Earnest continued. “Reporters now have access to those when this president goes to a private home.”

So, the President has made a few tiny concessions to transparency on issues that really don't matter at all, but has doubled down on secrecy on the things that do actually matter.

Sure, I know that the Press Secretary's job is to basically cover for the President and do whatever possible to defend the White House's claims, no matter how bogus, but wouldn't the world be better off if there were actually a tiny bit of honesty from such folks? They could admit that they've tried and failed. They could say that transparency promises seemed easier from the outside, but turned out to be more difficult in reality. They could admit that it's still a work in progress. Any of those would at least acknowledge reality. Pretending reality isn't reality doesn't convince anyone. In fact, it just appears to be yet another example of the very non-transparency that everyone's complaining about in the first place.

Filed Under: barack obama, foia, josh earnest, no fly list, secrecy, state secrets, transparency, visitor logs, white house

CIA Finishes Its Torture Report Redactions As Relations With Senate Intelligence Committee Have Become 'Strained'

from the shouldn't-they-always-be-that-way dept

As you may recall, back in April, the Senate finally voted to declassify parts of the executive summary of its $40 million, 6,300-page report on the disastrous CIA torture program. Of course, as part of that, the White House said it would let the CIA take a first crack at figuring out what to redact, with the expected answer being "a whole hell of a lot." The CIA has apparently now turned its first draft of redactions over to the White House, which is expected to further redact things, because the State Department is afraid that releasing the report might make people angry at US officials. While that may be true, it would seem that the proper response to that would have been to, you know, not torture people, rather than to hide the report under a bunch of black ink.

Of course, there's a separate meta-drama within all of this, which was the big fight between the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee who wrote the report, after it came out that the CIA spied on the Senate staffers working on this report. That got even more messy, when the CIA then asked the DOJ to investigate those Senate staffers for possible crimes, while the Senate also asked the DOJ to investigate if the CIA had broken the law in spying on those staffers' computers. Needless to say, there's been something of a chill in "relations" between the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In the Politico report about the CIA handing the report over to the White House, it includes a tidbit at the end, suggesting that the chilly relationship has not thawed at all:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a former Intelligence Committee chairman, said the declassification process has strained relations between the committee and the administration’s intelligence apparatus. The CIA has accused the committee of removing an internal interrogation review from its facilities — and Feinstein has charged that the CIA erred in removing that document from the committee’s computers.

“There’s a code of silence. And it stems from the redaction of this enhanced interrogation, torture report,” Rockefeller said of congressional relations with the CIA.

While the "code of silence" seems stupid and petty, frankly, it's probably a good thing that the sides aren't too chummy. The whole point of the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress is supposed to be for oversight of the intelligence community. However, in recent years that's obviously changed into something entirely different, where those Committees seemed much more focused on being the intelligence community's cheerleaders and defenders, rather than overseers. The relationship here should be somewhat adversarial. No one's saying they need to hate each others' guts, but it's pretty clear that bad things happen when the relationship has become downright friendly.

Filed Under: cia, redactions, senate intelligence committee, state department, torture, torture report, white house

White House Accidentally Reveals CIA's Top Spy In Afghanistan

from the and-snowden-is-the-problem? dept

For all the exaggerated talk of how much "damage" Ed Snowden has done, he hasn't actually revealed the names of any spies or put them in any danger. No, that's the White House's job. An apparent slip-up meant that the White House distributed a list of people at a press briefing in Afghanistan that clearly identified the CIA's top spy in the country.

The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.

The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.

Perhaps even more incredible is that, at first, the White House denied there was a problem with the list, until someone apparently figured out what happened:

In this case, the pool report was filed by Washington Post White House bureau chief Scott Wilson. Wilson said he had copied the list from the e-mail provided by White House press officials. He sent his pool report to the press officials, who then distributed it to a list of more than 6,000 recipients.

Wilson said that after the report was distributed, he noticed the unusual reference to the station chief and asked White House press officials in Afghanistan whether they had intended to include that name.

Initially, the press office raised no objection, apparently because military officials had provided the list to distribute to news organizations. But senior White House officials realized the mistake and scrambled to issue an updated list without the CIA officer’s name. The mistake, however, already was being noted on Twitter, although without the station chief’s name.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the guy who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding program is sitting in jail for "revealing" a CIA agent's name, when he actually did much, much less (simply confirming to a reporter the name of someone that reporter might want to talk to about a story). But, as double standards tend to go, I would imagine no one will be going to jail over this much more serious leak. After all, whoever fucked up and put it in the list probably hasn't blown the whistle on a program like the US torturing people.

Obviously, mistakes happen, but it's fairly incredible how the same people will brush off "mistakes" like this one, while going absolutely crazy over claims that John Kiriakou or Thomas Drake or Ed Snowden somehow caused a tremendous amount of "harm" despite no evidence to actually support those claims.

Filed Under: afghanistan, cia, defense department, dod, ed snowden, john kiriakou, leaks, press office, thomas drake, white house

USA Freedom Act Being Watered Down Even More... Getting Close To Useless

from the because-of-course dept

We were already disappointed that the USA Freedom Act -- which was the original "pretty good" response to NSA surveillance -- had been watered down in a manager's amendment before being voted out of committee. The original bill already had some issues, but also did fix some of the worst issues of NSA surveillance. The manager's amendment watered it down so that it was still better than nothing, but really not that great. And, of course, between passing out of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, it appears that the bill (with tremendous pressure from the White House) is being gutted even further, such that the end result may be close to useless.

“Last stage negotiations” between members of the House and the Obama administration could significantly weaken provisions in the NSA bill, people familiar with the discussions say.

“Behind the scenes, there’s some nervousness,” one House aide said.

From what I've heard, that last line is an understatement. It goes beyond "some nervousness" to people recognizing that the bill has basically been stripped of nearly all important parts. As the article notes above, it appears that a casualty of the negotiations is the transparency provisions that would at least (finally) allow companies to be much more transparent about what information the FISA Court and the FBI/NSA are demanding they hand over. Taking that transparency out of the bill not only may re-raise First Amendment issues, but it also leaves a giant loophole for the NSA to continue to force companies to destroy our 4th Amendment rights, without anyone knowing about it, or being able to challenge it.

There are still a few things in the bill that would be useful, but the list is quickly dwindling, and by the time this whole process is over, the bill itself may be worse than useless.

Filed Under: congress, house, transparency, usa freedom act, white house

White House Says It Can Withhold Vulnerabilities If It Will Help Them Catch 'Intellectual Property Thieves'

from the say-what-now? dept

We've been among those critical of the White House for the administration's dangerous policy of not revealing security vulnerabilities it discovers, as it seeks to exploit them. In trying to respond to some of the criticism about this policy, the White House has put out a blog post by White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel, in which he explains how the intelligence community determines whether to disclose a vulnerability... or hoard it for its own use. He lists out three potential reasons for not disclosing:

Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks.

As Marcy Wheeler points out, withholding the release of such vulnerabilities for terrorism purposes is not new or surprising. Ditto for so-called cybersecurity (protecting against "hackers or other adversaries" looking to "exploit our networks") What's a bit of a surprise is the new inclusion of "intellectual property theft." However, the NSA, DHS and various supporters have long used claims of China "stealing intellectual property" as an excuse to try to ratchet up surveillance powers. Rep. Mike Rogers, author of CISPA, used the "scary Chinese stealing our IP!" FUD card to push CISPA a few years ago. And former cybesecurity czar Richard Clarke has argued that China stealing intellectual property is a good reason for DHS to be able to spy on all internet traffic.

So, the fact that this argument is used as a sort of "cybersecurity" claim perhaps isn't that surprising. However, it still seems like a massive logical leap to go from "well we need to protect corporate intelletual property from the Chinese" to arguing that's a good reason for withholding the disclosure of key technical vulnerabilities that might put everyone at risk. Does anyone honestly believe that the US government should withhold details of a major technical vulnerability... just so it can catch some IP infringers?

And of course, by broadly allowing the NSA and others to fail to patch vulnerabilities, because they want to "prevent intellectual property theft," it's just opening up the whole system to be abused even more widely than before. Sure, they may mean "stopping Chinese hackers from swiping plans for a new fighter jet," but vaguely denoting that it can withhold info on zero day vulnerabilities because of "pirates" seems wide open to abuse -- especially given the way many in law enforcement and the administration seem to want to equate every day file sharers with "internet terrorists" or whatever.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, disclosure, intellectual property, michael daniel, nsa, surveillance, vulnerabilities, white house

New We The People Petition Asks White House To Respond To Eligible Petitions Within 30 Days

from the yo-dawg-i-herd-you-like-petition-responses... dept

This is what happens when you ignore the public. Are you happy, We the People?

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Respond to all Whitehouse.gov petitions that get over 100k signatures within one month.

Whitehouse.gov petitions were intended to give the public a voice. The idea is that if more than 100,000 people all feel strongly enough about something to hand over their home address and personal email to the government and complete a nearly impossible CAPTCHA, then the President of the United States should have to respond to them. Because... democracy.

Here's the problem: there are dozens of Whitehouse.gov petitions that have received more than 100k signatures, but have gone months and even years without a response (1). That's not improving transparency, it's the same gov't spin we've always had. So what will it, Obama, hypocrisy or democracy? Sign!

It's a nice idea. There are petitions that appear to be permanently stuck to the administration's backburner while others that haven't even met the 100k signature threshold have been answered simply because the White House has a canned response on hand.

Others require more thoughtful answers or (would) force the administration to take a stance on controversial issues, something it clearly would rather not do. The average wait for a response has slipped to nearly 300 days. Among the petitions still being actively ignored by the White House are ones dealing with pardoning Edward Snowden and firing the attorney who handled Aaron Swartz's prosecution.

This new petition, created on April 1st, is clearly tongue-in-cheek. While there are some petitioners who mistake petitions for binding contracts, this probably isn't one of them. However, it does go meta on the issue, potentially putting the administration in the position of agreeing to address petitions in a timely fashion. This could prove uncomfortable for the White House since it appears it would rather ignore certain petitions until the White House changes hands in 2016.

Filed Under: democracy, petition, public participation, responses, we the people, white house

White House Was Aware Of CIA's Attempt To File Criminal Complaint Against Senate Staffers; Did Nothing To Stop It

from the disgraceful dept

As the scandal over the CIA spying on Senate staffers charged with oversight of the CIA deepens, it's now come out that the White House was fully aware that the CIA was pushing forward with a criminal complaint against those very same staffers and did nothing to stop it. It's been reported that the White House is standing strongly behind the CIA on this one, and that report confirms some of the serious Constitutional/separation of powers questions that have been raised over this incident.

Having the White House be supportive of the CIA not only spying on its overseers, but then (even more ridiculously) filing a criminal complaint against those same staffers for doing their job speaks volumes about how this White House views Congressional oversight of its giant spying machine. It views it with contempt. It only reinforces how the claims that have been stated repeatedly over the past few months that there is plenty of oversight of the intelligence community are completely hogwash.

Filed Under: cia, senate intelligence committee, spying scandal, torture, white house