Slashdot Mirror


Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

An anonymous reader writes "Three out of five PCLOB board members are in agreement: The NSA spy programs are illegal.. Unfortunately, these lawyers are not in a position to act or make any changes, only to advise congress and the president. Could this be the start of change to come? 'According to leaked copies of a forthcoming report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), the government's metadata collection program "lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.'" Not surprisingly, the Obama administration disagrees.

41 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. first submission by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also submitted by me 4 hours earlier... but who's keeping track :)
    http://slashdot.org/submission...

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:first submission by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      I like yours better. Yours has better punctuation.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:first submission by Professr3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's probably why they picked this one instead...

  2. Duh by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

    Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

    --
    Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    1. Re:Duh by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

        Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

      Sadly, more people are spending the morning texting each other over last night's arrest of a rich kid with poor self discipline.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Duh by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion."

      The real question is, how did people like that manage to get onto an oversight board?

    3. Re:Duh by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Good question. This oversight board clearly wasn't subject to the proper oversight.

    4. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

      Surveillance Watchdog has no authority to determine what is legal or illegal.

    5. Re:Duh by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      This, so very much.

      It may be a high-ranking opinion, but it's still just an opinion. Until the courts weigh in with their opinions, this is little more than a show to make the case that the administration sympathizes with the public. Another, even higher-ranking opinion will still land on the President's desk saying that the program is legal, but the public won't rally around that one, of course. Then the President can cite conflicting opinions, and defer any action to the Supreme Court, which can't act without a lawsuit (of which several are in progress already).

      As usual, Sarten-X concludes Slashdot story is flamebait for the hivemind, "should not have been posted"

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Duh by subanark · · Score: 2

      I don't see how this is "obvious".

      You people (as I see much of slashdot agreeing on this issue) have grown up under conditions where privacy is expected, and the more someone knows about you, the more they can use it against you. This all comes about due to the individualism nature of western culture and the overall selfish nature that we are heading towards (mostly due to a move towards an oligarchy form of government). Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue with the government watching over us.

    7. Re:Duh by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      They've already stated that they've used it for squashing dissent and blackmail against "extremists" of some sort haven't they? The term "extremists" can be very flexible as well.

    8. Re:Duh by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Places in the world that haven't moved towards these directions don't have any issue with the government watching over us.

      Nonsense. If your government is made up of imperfect humans--and all of them are, obviously--then it is a serious issue when the government collects private information of this nature on almost all of its citizens. The fact that some people have no problem with it just means they're naive. "It can't happen here!" Oh, yes it can. Your government is just as human as anyone else's. If you're doing something the government doesn't like, and they have this type of surveillance, then you will likely become a target, and be in trouble.

      Privacy is always relevant.

    9. Re:Duh by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No actually the fact that it is possible to use private information to harm typical citizens is a sign that we need to clean up out legal and social system because we obviously don't actually like our laws and customs.

      It will *always* be possible, because it is *always* possible for the government to be corrupt. It doesn't matter how much you change your legal and social systems; human corruption will always be with us.

    10. Re:Duh by metlin · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's even worse than you know.

      I posted this on another thread, but I quote below:

      The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.

      With draconian laws like this, all you need to do is have a chat on the dietary benefits of celery with a suspected terrorist and you could get be held without charge on the grounds of "national security".

    11. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >The real question is, how did people like that manage to get onto an oversight board?

      "We apologise again for the fault in the overseeing. Those responsible for overseeing the oversight board will now be overseen by a double-meta-oversight board"

      ("A Cøngressman once bit my sister... No realli!")

  3. Illegal eh? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's illegal. So I guess someone's going to go to prison for the crime then.

    Uh...

    ba-dum-tschhh....?

    It's really sad that the idea of widespread illegalactivities by the government yielding prison sentences for those involved is a joke. But that half ounce of pot you got caught with...

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Illegal eh? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This.

      What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?

      So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.

    2. Re:Illegal eh? by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      This.

      What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?

      So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.

      The phrase: fait accompli comes to mind.

      The worst of it is, it has been coming for over 20 years, beginning in the Reagan administration, when the groundwork was laid - the technology has evolved to the point it is considered a bummer of sufficient magnitude for people to raise a fuss over.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Illegal eh? by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      If you're going to start pointing fingers at an administration, at least cite your source/provide evidence. What groundwork was laid during the Reagan administration?

      It's been mentioned many times, but I guess you didn't see it. Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronnie in 1981. 9/11 simply gave Bush Jr. enough national fear of enemies who may walk among us to broaden it. Despite a stated goal of preserving civil rights and right to privacy, Section 1.4 (a), (b), (g) & (i) are sufficiently vague to cover what has been going on.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. And nothing will change ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those who run this will continue to say it's legal, and even if it isn't legal, it's Too Important to stop doing it.

    And then they'll just have to find more creative ways to hide that people are being charged on the basis of illegal spying -- why no your honor, this was a routine traffic stop, and his laptop fell open.

    Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.

    So, they'll continue to break the law, and then they'll just lie about where the information came from.

    The comparisons to the Stasi get more relevant every day, and many of us are old enough to remember the old "papers please, comrade" jokes.

    Sadly, we're heading there, to the applause of some, and horror of others.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And nothing will change ... by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because, I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about how the spy agencies have been briefing law enforcement in how to cover up the involvement of the three-letter-agencies.

      Here's one.

      And here's a Wikipedia starting point.

    2. Re:And nothing will change ... by Bugler412 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called "parallel construction", the three letter agency drops a clue to the more direct enforcement people about who to watch and where to look, then the direct enforcement types build a case that does not use the original evidence provided by the three letter agency. Denying you your due process rights since you cannot confront or dispute the original evidence that clued them in.

    3. Re:And nothing will change ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which means sooner or later they will be doing this for people who disagree politically, or who oppose funding increases, or just because they can.

      When your state security can put anybody on the radar of law enforcement and conceal their involvement, then it will be abused, and possibly for personal gain (your ex's new husband needs some closer scrutiny maybe?)

      This just smacks of some of the worst of McCarthyism where lives can be ruined because someone decides it's convenient.

      You don't have a free society when you can be subject to trumped up charges used to mask the real reasons. But increasingly, 'free' is irrelevant under the program of "appearing safe".

      Oh, we see you criticized our agency ... let's see what we can dig up, oooh, says here you're having an affair, that should be enough to discredit you and draw attention away from us.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:And nothing will change ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      even if it isn't legal, it's Too Important to stop doing it.

      I am sick and tired of hearing the Government say this. Usefulness is not a valid criterium for arguing the Constitutionality of a law!

      Even the board's statement (quoted in the summary" that the spying "has shown only limited value" is a non-sequitur and should not have been mentioned because doing so lends credibility to the false premise that usefulness is relevant.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:And nothing will change ... by virtigex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Police lying about how they obtained evidence (because they obtained it illegally) is called "parallel construction". Amazingly, US law enforcement treat it as just another tool they can use, rather than a method for committing perjury and circumventing the Fourth Amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

    6. Re:And nothing will change ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By handling them exactly the same way NAZIs get handled today: approving their parade permits and ignoring them otherwise. And then, if anybody -- NAZI or otherwise -- commits a crime, prosecute them for that crime according to normal judicial procedure.

      Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Norway, by the way, were a Hell of a lot closer to Germany than the US was, both culturally and geographically, and also did not have the same tradition and laws of freedom that we had. Very little about their experience would have been applicable.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:And nothing will change ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Oh, by the way -- before you object to my position expressed previously, consider this: If it were okay to ignore the rule of law for "useful" "national security" purposes and I were in charge, your cowardly, totalitarian ass would be among the first up against the wall.

      Be glad that rule of law exists.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. Probably won't have much affect by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since it has already passed muster with the courts, Congress, and President, I doubt there will be much outcome. They are advisors, not "deciders."

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Probably won't have much affect by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Correct. Government self-justifies increased power for itself. Nothing new here for millenia. Move along, folks.

      The course of action is to vote these people out at the next election. Let the ones even who stand silently by be afraid.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Probably won't have much affect by SplawnDarts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While this opinion is in no way binding, it may still be valuable. The courts have not weighed in on the various NSA activities with any finality. One district judge has indicated it's probably constitutional. One has indicated it's not. Public disapproval can still help sway the outcome when this dispute makes its inevitable way to the supreme court.

    3. Re:Probably won't have much affect by Bugler412 · · Score: 2

      Here's where we hit the next wall. Even if we completely purged every elected official from every level of government via the election process (damned near impossible since they have ballot access rigged in their favor too) then you hit the next level of the unelected all powerful bureaucracy that is the three letter agencies.

  6. Three out of five? by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Three out of five PCLOB board members are in agreement: The NSA spy programs are illegal. ... Could this be the start of change to come?

    Indeed. Expect the government to replace one PCLOB member.

  7. Man who wouldn't be king's speech by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From a higher level, metadata, who calls whom, and when, would have been used to round up the Founding Fathers. Had they still managed to be successful, they would have forbidden that to government without warrant.

    It's really that damned simple, people.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Another brick in the wall by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are many who will despair that reports like this will get ignored. What I think we can learn from history is that big legal and social changes in the United States don't happen overnight. It takes a long time to build the political will to fix a broken system. We saw that with the civil rights movement, we're seeing it now (in my humble opinion) with marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage.

    Even though the agency that issued this report has no authority, it's one more source of media coverage, one more expert opinion saying the surveillance programs are un-American. What we need are years, not months, of frequent and critical media coverage. That is what change looks like.

    I know the NSA's abuses can't end soon enough. The democratic process makes wise decisions slowly and foolish decisions instantly. Keep the pressure on, and give it time.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Another brick in the wall by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The good news is groups within the USA are working together in open courts and winning
      http://www.freedomwatchusa.org...
      They will continue with their legal work in open court facing color of law efforts by the US gov.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. I think the outrage is hypocritical. by thewebsiteisdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Consider for a moment your standard, run of the mill credit report that is easily obtainable by just about anybody. It contains an actual chronological record of anything you do from a financial standpoint, but the metadata that is able to be gleaned from it tells a much more invasive story about you than just who you called and when. It tells me the kind of car you drive, the amount of money you make, the kind of neighborhood you live in, I know where you work, where your kids go to school. I can even make a pretty good estimate on if you are having marital problems. This data collection has been going on for decades, without your consent, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You can't even own the data about yourself, and others are both allowed and encouraged to make money off said information, mostly be way of penalizing you if they don't like what it says. Where is the outrage? Where is the oversight? Is it because one dataset is owned by corporate pimps and the other is owned by the government? I personally don't give a shit if the NSA knows who I called. The furniture store down the street can spend $7 and find out all about my medical procedure from 2007, and absolutely anything else about my life they care to look into within about 30 seconds. We conceded privacy for the sake of convenience a long, long time ago.

  10. I'm wary of their reasoning by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.

    A thing like this ought to be legal or illegal regardless of whether it is useful or not... So, though I'm glad they've reached this conclusion, I'm hesitant to rejoice — if these are the standards to apply, we may have something horribly invasive coming in the future, which will survive legal scrutiny because it will be useful, even if otherwise illegal...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  11. Shoe falls, White House rejects findings. by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, you already know the response White House, Obama isn't agreeing with the finding.

    Back in 2005 then Senator Obama complained about the Patriot Act, which he's now defending.

    “This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law.If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, through the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong.Giving law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing. And it’s the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans, and the ideals America stands for.”

    So by his own statements he's jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  12. only if you ask them to give you free stuff by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only if you choose to ask the furniture store to give you furniture without you paying for it can they pull your credit. If you ask them to front you some furniture, they can see what happened to other people who loaned you money. My credit report is almost empty, it lists a car loan and that's about it. Nobody sees my report because I don't go around asking people to let me spend money I don't have.

    Contrast this with the government. They have thousands of records on me, every phone call I've ever made or received. All of my emails. There's no way to opt out. If I tried hard enough to get away from their prying, they have squadrons of heavily armed men to send after me.

    See the difference?

  13. Re:value of it critical to the Constitutional bala by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Constitution is quite clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". However, you can't bear arms in the White House, and that's Constitutional. You have a right to bear arms. The government has a duty to protect the president. The usefulness ("furtherance of a legitimate government interest") is larger than the freedom cost of prohibiting carry in the White House and a limited number of other locations.

    IMO, the reason that these things don't conflict is not because you don't have the right to bear arms everywhere you go, but rather because you don't necessarily have the right to go into the White House.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  14. Re:see the difference between "exists" and "doesn' by thewebsiteisdown · · Score: 2

    For the credit reporting agency, there simply isn't any data there if you don't go around borrowing money.

    Not true.

    The credit data on me does not EXIST. It's literally nothing (beyond maybe a phone book listing). So you're comparing NOTHING, no data being collected, to a vast database of our daily activities. You're saying the NSA spying is equalivent to - literally - nothing.

    If I claimed "I don't use the phone or email" then I am re-framing your own argument. You are saying that one collection is BAD and one is OK based solely on the volume of information.(and since there is nothing of any value or volume, in your case, which is not at all true for the majority of people). You make an allowance for CR agencies because you (incorrectly) believe that its all about you asking for something from someone, or using their service. That same argument could be turned around if the government facilitates any network that your data travels over, then. So what's your problem?!? You want them to give your data a free ride, they just want a quick peek at its content! How is that unfair?!?!? /s