Once Again Congress Votes Proactively To Keep Itself Ignorant On Technology

from the a-series-of-tubes dept

Four years ago, we wrote about the House voting to keep itself ignorant on technology, and unfortunately, I can now basically just rerun that post again, with a few small tweaks, so here we go:

The Office of Technology Assessment existed in Congress from 1972 until 1995, when it was defunded by the Newt Gingrich-led "Contract with America" team. The purpose was to actually spend time to analyze technology issues and to provide Congress with objective analysis of the impact of technology and the policies that Congress was proposing. Remember how back when there was the big SOPA debate and folks in Congress kept talking about how they weren't nerds and needed to hear from the nerds? Right: the OTA was supposed to be those nerds, but it hasn't existed in nearly two decades -- even though it still exists in law. It just isn't funded.

Rep. Mark Takano (in 2014 it was Rush Holt) thought that maybe we should finally give at least a little bit of money to test bringing back OTA and to help better advise Congress. While some would complain about Congress spending any money, this money was to better inform Congress so it stopped making bad regulations related to technology, which costs a hell of a lot more than the $2.5 million Takano's amendment proposed. Also, without OTA, Congress is much more reliant on very biased lobbyists, rather than a truly independent government organization.

The fact that we're seeing this kind of nonsense in Congress should show why we need it:

A quartet of tech experts arrived at a little-noticed hearing at the U.S. Capitol in May with a message: Quantum computing is a bleeding-edge technology with the potential to speed up drug research, financial transactions and more.

To Rep. Adam Kinzinger, though, their highly technical testimony might as well have been delivered in a foreign language. “I can understand about 50 percent of the things you say,” the Illinois Republican confessed.

But, alas, like so many things in Congress these days, the issue of merely informing themselves has become -- you guessed it --partisan. The amendment failed 195 to 217 on mostly partisan lines (15 Republicans voted for it vs. 211 against, and only 6 Democrats voted against it, while 180 voted for it). If there's any silver lining, that's slightly better than in 2014 when a similar vote failed 164 to 248. So... progress?

Either way, when Congress is ignorant, we all suffer. That so many in Congress are voting to keep themselves and their colleagues ignorant should be seen as a problem.

Filed Under: congress, mark takano, office of technology assessment, ota, rush holt, technology, understanding

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

from the because-of-course dept

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

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

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

Amendments Offered To NDAA To Try To Stop NSA Surveillance Abuse

from the forcing-hands dept

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

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

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

Congress Has Voted Proactively To Remain Clueless About Technology

from the well-isn't-that-great... dept

The Office of Technology Assessment existed in Congress from 1972 until 1995, when it was defunded by the Newt Gingrich-led "Contract with America" team. The purpose was to actually spend time to analyze technology issues and provide Congress with objective analysis of the impact of technology and the policies that Congress was proposing. Remember how, back when there was the big SOPA debate and folks in Congress kept talking about how they weren't nerds and needed to hear from the nerds? Right: the OTA was supposed to be those nerds, but it hasn't existed in nearly two decades.

Rep. Rush Holt thought maybe it would be a good idea to change that, and proposed an amendment that would have allocated some funds to bring back the OTA. And Congress voted it down (164 - 248), because, really, who would want a more informed Congress concerning issues that deal with the underpinnings of economic growth and innovation?

It's a puzzling move given how often people comment on Congress's shortage of technical expertise — and it speaks to the way Congress view technical expertise as a luxury rather than a necessity. When they zeroed out the OTA's funding in 1995, Holt says, the new Republican majority "actually said Congress shouldn't have any special perks. As if having a congressional agency that provides advice is a perk."

The real problem is that Congress doesn't think it needs to pay for objective advice on tech issues, because it already gets subjective advice on tech issues from lobbyists.

The problem, Holt continues, isn't that Congress doesn't have access to technical advice. To the contrary, there's an endless parade of people wanting to advise Congress on technical issues. But much of the advice comes from lobbyists and other paid advocates who might not have the public's best interests at heart. A staff of in-house technical experts could help members of Congress distinguish good advice from advice that is merely self-serving.

Nice work, Congress. I'm guessing those against this can argue that they've "privatized" the technology advice they get, letting the market decide. Right?

Filed Under: congress, office of technology assessment, ota, rush holt

NY Times: NSA Should Be Barred From Requiring Companies To Introduce Surveillance Backdoors

from the good-for-them dept

This is a bit surprising, given the source, but the NY Times editorial board has come out strongly against the NSA's practice of forcing companies to install backdoors in no uncertain terms:

These back doors and special access routes are a terrible idea, another example of the intelligence community’s overreach. Companies and individuals are increasingly putting their most confidential data on cloud storage services, and need to rely on assurances their data will be secure. Knowing that encryption has been deliberately weakened will undermine confidence in these systems and interfere with commerce.

The back doors also strip away the expectations of privacy that individuals, businesses and governments have in ordinary communications. If back doors are built into systems by the N.S.A., who is to say that other countries’ spy agencies — or hackers, pirates and terrorists — won’t discover and exploit them?

In two short paragraphs, the editorial gets right to the heart of the problem. The "cost" to having these backdoors is undeniably huge in terms of trust and privacy. The harm to individuals and businesses is tremendous, but the benefits are, at best, minor. We get vague discussions about stopping some terrorist attacks, but still others get through. Yet, in every day life there are risks. It's ridiculous to expect 100% perfection in stopping terrorists, and when we go way too far in trying to stop every attack, we lead to unintended consequences such as destroying privacy and harming the ability of companies to build better, more secure products.

Surprisingly, again, the NY Times then speaks out in support of a bill from Rep. Rush Holt that would make it illegal for the government to require backdoors in various products. This would be a huge step in enabling the US tech industry to move forward with more secure encryption.

Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would, among other provisions, bar the government from requiring software makers to insert built-in ways to bypass encryption. It deserves full Congressional support. In the meantime, several Internet companies, including Google and Facebook, are building encryption systems that will be much more difficult for the N.S.A. to penetrate, forced to assure their customers that they are not a secret partner with the dark side of their own government.

This is unlikely to happen, unfortunately. The DOJ, for years, has been pushing for even more backdoors. And, you may recall, just a month or so before the Snowden leaks, the DOJ wanted the power to fine companies who wouldn't install surveillance backdoors. The law enforcement world would go absolutely ballistic, should Holt's bill ever get near becoming law.

Filed Under: backdoors, nsa, nsa surveillance, rush holt, security, surveillance

Rep. Rush Holt Bill To Repeal PATRIOT And FISA Amendments Acts Now Live, Ambitious

from the overkill-far-preferable-to-underkill dept

NJ Rep. Rush Holt announced back on July 11th that he was planning legislation to repeal both the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. The text of Holt's bill, the "Surveillance State Repeal Act," has been posted, along with a summary of the key aspects of the legislation.

Holt's bill covers a lot of ground for something that only runs about 8 pages long, and as promised, some additional protection for whistleblowers is built in. Here's the summary:

The Surveillance State Repeal Act would:

1. Repeal the PATRIOT Act (which contains the telephone metadata harvesting provision).

2. Repeal the FISA Amendments Act (which contains the email harvesting provision).

3. Ensure that any FISA collection against a US Person takes place only pursuant to a valid warrant based on probable cause (which was the original FISA standard from 1978 to 2001).

4. Retain the ability for government surveillance capabilities to be targeted against a specific natural person, regardless of the type of communications method(s) or device(s) being used by the subject of the surveillance.

5. Retains provisions in current law dealing with the acquisition of intelligence information involving weapons of mass destruction from entities not composed primarily of U.S. Persons.

6. Prohibit the government from mandating that electronic device or software manufacturers build in so-called “back doors” to allow the government to bypass encryption or other privacy technology built into said hardware and/or software.

7. Increase the terms of judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) from seven to ten years and allow their reappointment.

8. Mandate that the FISC utilize technologically competent Special Masters (technical and legal experts) to help determine the veracity of government claims about privacy, minimization and collection capabilities employed by the US government in FISA applications.

9. Mandate that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regularly monitor such domestic surveillance programs for compliance with the law, including responding to Member requests for investigations and whistleblower complaints of wrongdoing.

A couple of aspects worth noting: First, while the entirety of the PATRIOT Act is repealed, portions of the FISA Amendments Act remain unchanged, specifically Sections 103 and 110.

Section 103 requires the Attorney General to forward a copy of any "decision, order, or opinion issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that includes significant construction or interpretation of any provision of this Act," along with any related documents, within 45 days of the decision. This is a key part of the oversight process and should probably be retained, although it also retains the right of the Director of National Intelligence to redact as much of these required documents as he sees fit (for "national security" reasons, of course).

Section 110 deals with weapons of mass destruction, as is noted in Holt's summary of the bill.

I'm not sure what extending the FISC judges' terms from 7 to 10 years and allowing for reappointment is supposed to accomplish, unless the hope is that in the future, there will be more diversity in court makeup (currently only one judge does not lean Republican) and that better judges will be retained longer. Hopefully, the addition of "Special Masters" to act in a somewhat adversarial role (or at least call "bullshit" on egregiously false claims) will result in less of a "rubber stamp" process.

The summary doesn't really address the whistleblower protections, other than the last sentence of point 9, which doesn't explain much. The wording in the bill is as follows:

SEC. 9. WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION TO REPORT COMPLAINTS OR INFORMATION.--An employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community that has knowledge of the programs and activities authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may submit a covered complaint--

(1) to the Comptroller General of the United States;
(2) to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representative
(3) to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; or
(4) in accordance with the process established under section 103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)).

(b) INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.--The Comptroller General shall investigate a covered complaint submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the investigation.

(c) COVERED COMPLAINT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''covered complaint'' means a complaint or information concerning programs and activities authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of--

(1) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
(2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH REPORTING OF WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE, OR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an officer or employee of an element of the intelligence community shall be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, for taking retaliatory action against an employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community who seeks to disclose or discloses covered information to--

(1) the Comptroller General;
(2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;
(3) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; or
(4) the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

(b) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

(1) COVERED INFORMATION.--The term ''covered information'' means any information (including classified or sensitive information) that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of--

(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

This offers better whistleblower protection, especially in terms of guarding against retaliatory actions. Unfortunately, this won't protect whistleblowers like Snowden, who quit of his own accord (eliminating the chance of retaliatory action) and is now facing espionage charges. Providing several routes for whistleblowers to take helps, but if anyone above these routes objects to the whistleblower (and is outside the "intelligence community" -- like the administration itself), the built-in protections of this legislation are nullified. (Of course, the same could be said about any legislation protecting whistleblowers, once the administration steps in. And I'm sure most officials won't consider "investigating" a whistleblower to be a "retaliatory" action, no matter how intrusive or destructive the outcome.)

Does this legislation have a chance? Rep. Amash's attempt to defund parts of the NSA's surveillance efforts lost by a handful of votes, but did prove that there was bipartisan support for dialing back the NSA's power. This is an even longer shot, and may be too aggressive to gain as much support as Amash's amendment. Of course, there will be a whole lot of rewriting going on before this ever gets to a vote, so the broad reach of this bill may be scaled back into something with better support without (hopefully) losing all of its bite.

Filed Under: fisa amendments act, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, repeal, rush holt

NJ Congressman Rush Holt Is Attempting To Repeal The Patriot Act And FISA Amendments Act

from the incremental-improvement-is-off-the-table dept

Just recently, we discussed Rep. Justin Amash's plan to defund the NSA through an amendment to the defense appropriations bill working its way through the House. At this point, I would normally say "following on the heels of that news," but in this case, Rep. Steve Rush Holt!!! of New Jersey made his announcement on the 11th, while Amash's arrived on the 15th.

Holt's news? A plan to repeal two laws notorious for their encroachments on civil liberties.

Soon, I will introduce legislation that would repeal the laws that brought us our current “surveillance state”: the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. My bill would restore the probable cause-based warrant requirement for any surveillance against an American citizen being proposed on the basis of an alleged threat to the nation.

As a bonus, Holt is also proposing "genuine legal protections" for whistleblowers, a big step up from the current climate in which whistleblowers are persecuted and prosecuted.

Holt's editorial/announcement, which appeared in the Asbury Park Press, details how the NSA collects and retains data without warrants, providing special "dispensation" for those who circumvent the normal routes.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, analyzing how the National Security Agency is apparently utilizing this data, said on its website: “In sum, if you use encryption they’ll keep your data forever. If you use Tor, they’ll keep your data for at least five years. If an American talks with someone outside the U.S., they’ll keep your data for five years. If you’re talking to your attorney, you don’t have any sense of privacy. And the NSA can hand over your information to the FBI for evidence of any crime, not just terrorism.

These two acts have resulted in agencies that are long on data and short on accountability. This situation is a direct result of administrations and legislators in thrall to a calculus of fear that has persuaded them to exchange liberty for safety despite being completely unable to guarantee their end of the bargain. Holt quotes Alexander Hamilton to make this point:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

And that's where we are today -- more than a decade removed from the event that resulted in the PATRIOT Act and seeing nothing but continual escalation and expansion of government incursion on our rights and privacy. Instead of spending the last 12 years attempting to find a balance, our elected officials (and the agencies under their purview) have chosen to see how far they could push before meeting resistance. Repealing these two laws completely may be excessive (or more negatively, impossible), but finding a balance is much easier when you start from a clean slate, rather than attempting to inch back miles of overreach until the scale settles.

Minor update: Eric Hellman points out that Rush Holt is in the middle of a Senate race, which means NJ voters have a chance to (somewhat indirectly) cast their vote on these two laws.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, fisa amendments act, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, repeal, rush holt

Finally Found: A Human That Can Beat Watson... And It Turns Out To Be Rep. Rush Holt

from the bow-down-to-the-superior-mind dept

While IBM's Watson obviously got a ton of attention for winning its big national TV challenge against two Jeopardy stars, apparently, IBM is taking the Jeopardy playing machine on tour, with a key stop being Congress. It got to play against a group of our elected officials... and one of them actually beat Watson. Say hello to Rep. Rush Holt -- who was a bit of a ringer, since he's actually a five-time Jeopardy champion. Holt apparently outscored Watson $8,600 to $6,200, though all the other Congressional Reps who went up against Watson were unable to master the computer. I guess this means that we should make Rep. Holt our new leader when the machines come to try to enslave us.

Filed Under: ai, computers, game algorithms, jeopardy, rush holt, watson
Companies: ibm