A coalition including civil liberties groups and government whistleblowers hascome out against aSenate bill respondingto the government surveillance and data collection revealed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. <\/p>\n
Many observers seethe current Senate version of the USA FreedomAct as the most likely to succeed. But a letter released by the groupMonday argues that the language in the bill is too murky and could actually codify some controversial government programs while failing to provide meaningful prohibition against mass surveillance. <\/p>\n
\"The USA FreedomAct has significant potential to degrade, rather than improve, the surveillance status quo,\" the letter warns. \"At best, even if faithfully implemented, the current bill will erect limited barriers to Section 215, only one of the various legal justifications for surveillance, create additional loopholes, and provide a statutory framework for some of the most problematic surveillance policies, all while reauthorizing the Patriot Act.\" <\/p>\n
Signers of the letterinclude NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake, as well as journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers, and groupsincludingProgressive Change Campaign Committee, the Sunlight Foundation, Restore The Fourth, and Fight for the Future. <\/p>\n
But notably absent from the list are some of the big-name civil liberties groups--including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology and New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute--who havesigned on to a letter endorsing the version of the bill introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Major tech companieshave alsoendorsed the bill through trade groups and industry coalitions. <\/p>\n
The legislation includes limits on surveillance under Section 215 of the USA PatriotAct -- the part invoked to justify the bulk collection of domestic phone meta-data -- as well as additional transparency provisions and the creation of a special advocate for civil liberties within the secretive court that overseas surveillance decision. But the billdoesnotaddress surveillance or data collection occurring under other authorities, including Section 702 of the USA PatriotAct and Executive Order 12333. <\/p>\n
Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the ACLU, says the organization\"conducted a careful analysis of the bill\" and believes on the whole it is a step in the right direction, although \"not perfect.\" <\/p>\n
Kevin Bankston, the policy director at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, says he sympathizes with the group opposing this version but believesthis bill is the best path forward. \"I agree with the signers of today's letter that USA FreedomAct doesn't go nearly far enough in addressing all of the worst NSA surveillance practices,\" says Bankston. \"But I also believe this bill is a critically important first step in the reform process that would end the NSA's bulk telephone records program while giving us much more transparency and accountability when it comes to government surveillance overall. \" <\/p>\n
Thoseopposing the Leahy version of the bill argue it may not actually end bulk surveillance programs. \"Given the several broad legal authorities claimed as justifications for mass surveillance of United States persons and non-United States persons,\" the letter reads, \"it remains unclear if the Senates USA FreedomAct would end any of the Intelligence Communitys clandestine programs to surveil Americans.\" <\/p>\n
Sascha Meinrath, directer of X-lab at the New American Foundation and the founder of the Open Technology Institute, isskeptical that the bill would effectively stymie bulk collection and signed on to the letter opposing the bill as an individual. Even experts on the matter, he says, have trouble determining the actual policy outcomes of the legislation because of the measure's \"nebulous\" language. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here:<\/p>\n
Privacy advocates split over NSA reform bill<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A coalition including civil liberties groups and government whistleblowers hascome out against aSenate bill respondingto the government surveillance and data collection revealed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. Many observers seethe current Senate version of the USA FreedomAct as the most likely to succeed. But a letter released by the groupMonday argues that the language in the bill is too murky and could actually codify some controversial government programs while failing to provide meaningful prohibition against mass surveillance Continue reading