Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

An anonymous reader writes There's an independent agency within the U.S. government called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Their job is to weigh the benefits of government actions — like stopping terrorist threats — against violations of citizens' rights that may result from those actions. As you might expect, the NSA scandal landed squarely in their laps, and they've compiled a report evaluating the surveillance methods. As the cynical among you might also expect, the Oversight Board gave the NSA a pass, saying that while their methods were "close to the line of constitutional reasonableness," they were used for good reason. In the completely non-binding 191-page report (PDF), they said, "With regard to the NSA's acquisition of 'about' communications [metadata], the Board concludes that the practice is largely an inevitable byproduct of the government's efforts to comprehensively acquire communications that are sent to or from its targets. Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks."

Comments

Shocking

[Kardos]

"Government declines to voluntarily give up its power, news at 11!"

What exactly was the expected outcome again?

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama was supposed to fix the world remember? They gave him the Nobel prize for being black, I mean for promoting peace before he even did anything. This must somehow be Bushes fault. He forced Obama to expand the powers of the NSA.....

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why this is modded flamebait. It's 100% correct. Until people get seriously pissed at both parties things have no chance of changing. If you're unwilling to vote third party then how the fuck do you expect to rise up if there is a revolution? People need to be angry.

Re:Shocking

[I'm New Around Here]

Well flamebait and truth are not mutually exclusive.

Also, see my sig.

Viva la Revolución!

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

> They gave him the Nobel prize for being black, I mean for promoting peace before he even did anything.

They gave it to him for not being Bush. That's how unhappy non-americans were with how Bush handled international affairs.
Obama should have turned it down. But that's a hard thing to do. Especially given that turning it down would have made a lot of people feel insulted.

Not surprised

[NormalVisual]

"Yeah, they broke the law, but they had good reasons!" Another useless government agency.

Re:Not surprised

[amicusNYCL]

Their job is to weigh the benefits of government actions — like stopping terrorist threats — against violations of citizens' rights that may result from those actions.

Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."

Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks.

Well, I guess it has to eliminate a significant portion of the "to/from" communications that it seeks, change the manner in which it conducts upstream collection, and develop better technology, then. Right? Or just stay exactly the same and ignore the unconstitutional part of everything?

There's a quote from Benjamin Franklin around here somewhere...

Re:Not surprised

[hamburger lady]

Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that?

just around when the ink dried on the constitution. you don't think this country has a long, long history of violating rights in the name of security?

Re:Not surprised

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

You should blame Google, Facebook and other Big Data companies for making indiscriminate surveillance somewhat palatable to the masses, who'll be thinking, it's okay for Google and Facebook to spy on us merely for profit, so it should be okay for the government to spy on us to prevent (omg) TERRORISM.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."

It has been going on, slowly but surely, bit by bit, for decades. In 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that police sobriety roadblocks obviously violated the Constitution, but that the "safety" they provide overrides that violation.

The excuse Chief Justice Rehnquist gave in his majority opinion was that while being stopped at a checkpoint did count as "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, it is only a "slight" intrusion which must be weighted against the importance of preventing drunk driving and the effectiveness of the roadblocks and therefore not a true violation of our Constitutional rights.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan wrote, "The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

[[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=444]]

Re:Not surprised

[NormalVisual]

The excuse Chief Justice Rehnquist gave in his majority opinion was that while being stopped at a checkpoint did count as "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, it is only a "slight" intrusion which must be weighted against the importance of preventing drunk driving and the effectiveness of the roadblocks and therefore not a true violation of our Constitutional rights.

"Just the tip, okay baby?" as defined by the Supreme Court.

Re:Not surprised

[jeIlomizer]

Except when you start taking into account the spirit of the constitution. Then this NSA nonsense is screwed. Any judge who says otherwise is complicit in the crimes against the American people, and many of them have been exactly that. There are no excuses, including 'ambiguity.'

Courts have also ruled that the right to free speech (or rather the right to be free from governmental restraint on speech) can be balanced against other competing factors, including those that arise from the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1: Congress can pass laws that abridge speech when it is necessary and proper to their function, such as criminalizing libel, or attempts to incite panic or criminal behavior (the canonical shouting "fire").

Then they're freedom-hating scumbags, to put it simply.

Re:Not surprised

[BlueStrat]

Why do you think it is sudden? Congress, with the courts approval, have been infringing on Constitutional rights since the Constitution was written. They make exceptions all the time: when you can speak (no "fire" in a crowded theater); when you can assemble (Sorry "Occupy", move along... move along...); which guns you're allowed to buy (all without infringing on your right to keep & bear!); and when a warrant is required to execute you (Drone, zooooom, boom!).

The ends justify the means in each of those cases, so it does now too, and will again in the future.

All that shows is that we're not the 'land of the free and the home of the brave,' and never have been. Of course, things like slavery made that obvious anyway. Our government is and always was full of freedom-hating scumbags.

Nothing is ever perfect. The US Constitution sets the standard, or the bar against which the government must constantly be measured against and corrected when government strays/errs.

Through the history of the US, it has been both closer to that ideal and farther away, and in different areas and in different ways to different people at different times. Since government size has expanded so greatly since the 1920s, likewise so has its' power and control over ever more aspects of our lives and control of ever more US business, health, resource, & economic infrastructure. That expands the severity and scope of such bad government behavior.

We are in yet another moment in US history where we must decide how far we allow government power to reach, how many of our choices it can eliminate/control, and how much monitoring & control over our speech and communications it can be allowed to achieve.

Remember; If the capability exists, it will be misused regardless of any laws or oversight put in place. It's human nature, and especially human political nature.

Strat

Disgusted but not really surprised

[bazmail]

This is absolutely abhorrent. The surveillance is illegal, the NSA even admits they spy on American citizens.

The US government is not "of the people", nor is it "for the people". The intelligence services exist purely to maintain and protect dynastic power for the privileged few.

Re:Disgusted but not really surprised

[iggymanz]

right after we convict and behead the traitors, sure

let's handle the primary needs first before getting around to secure comm

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their job is to weigh the benefits of government actions — like stopping terrorist threats — against violations of citizens' rights that may result from those actions

There is absolutely no valid reason to violate citizens' rights. At all. Ever. There is no way to justify it. These people should be out on their asses, but as we all know, corrupt assholes are in high demand for government positions.

Re:Bullshit.

[Yakasha]

Another example is a person's right to free speech does not include libel and slander. When two or more rights conflict, lawmakers and the courts must sort out who's rights win. So from a purist's point of view, there are valid reasons to "violate" certain rights, since use or protection of one right may violate another.

The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.

So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.

Does your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have more or less weight than your rights under the 4th amendment et.al.?

That is up to me to decide, not the Federal Government, because nobody ever gave them the right to decide.

It is not a black-and-white problem as is often portrayed on Slashdot, such as you have done above.

I think it is. But I know I'm in the tiny minority that believes if you want an exception to the Constitution, you're supposed to pass an amendment.

In violation of many Data Treaties

[WillAffleckUW]

Not only is it in violation of the US Constitution, but also the Canadian Constitution, and the EU-US Data Treaty that the Senate affirmed, making it more Law than Laws of Congress.

But, hey, keep up this stuff and don't be surprised when the Guillotines start working non-stop.