6 ms·

Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she believes the review group can produce meaningful results if

Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she believes the review group can produce meaningful results if it includes privacy advocates, academics and other people who are independent from the surveillance agencies. Unfortunately not going to happen... "The members will have access to classified information so they need to be administratively attached to a government element but the review process and findings will be their own," Turner said. Something as serious as this needs an adversarial process. Drawing from only people "administratively attached to a government element" guarantees that won't happen. Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? I know that the courts are supposed to provide this oversight when they declare something unconstitutional, but the courts hear from advocates who are not "administratively attached" Personally, I would like to see a process whereby several groups independently come up with their own conclusions and publish those independent opinions separately before synthesizing one report. With only one report published, we can be certain that it will be whitewashed, diluted and redacted. At the very least if there is a report, they should include the notion of publishing a "dissenting opinion" like the courts do.

josh2600 13y ago
In other societies, what you're referring to might be called an Ombudsman, or in our judicial system, a district attorney. There is no such counterpoint in government, save our elected officials. Specifically, the reason the Commander in Chief is a civilian seems to be for this exact reason. Anyways, I think the concept of a dissenting opinion would be welcome from the public's perspective and shunned from the bureaucratic one.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Funny though, the elected lot want votes. On one hand "we" give them power; on the other hand, they really don't want our opinions.
RexRollman 13y ago
It's theater. They don't intend to let anything interfere with their surveillance of everyone.
mpyne 13y ago
Do you have any clue what "administratively attached to a government element" means? It sounds like you don't. The issue is that a security clearance for access to given information requires three things: 1. A screening (eligibility for a security clearance). This can be done outside of government. 2. Need to know. Our 'review group' will certainly have that. 3. Permission of the unit Director/CO/OIC. This is why people might need to be "administratively attached" to a unit. It's one of those stereotypical "Catch-22" situations. If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't. By attaching them to a unit 'administratively' they simply declare which unit Director/CO/OIC is going to get their head put on the chopping block if one of those privacy groups leaks classified information. Now there are reasons to be afraid of government involvements in groups. The easy thing is financial interest, so we just need to make sure the reviewers from the NGOs volunteer or are paid from outside the government. Another concern is performance evaluation. You wouldn't want the person "signing the FITREP" to be the person with an existing interest in the outcome of the decision one way or the other. But I don't see that here. Either way the report hasn't even been published yet, so how can you possibly know that it must be whitewashed? At least wait for the damn thing to be published before you unleash the attacks you undoubtedly already have queued up. :P
- Helianthus 13y ago
  >If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't. This is bureaucratic legerdemain that falls within the purview of the original criticism: given the leash, bureaucracy will exonerate bureaucracy.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    It's no more or less stupid than recording the name of an person where the name is unknown as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe". If you're here to tell me that admin is surreal then, hey, I agree with you. But this here is as innocuous as bureaucracy can possibly get.
- malandrew 13y ago
schoen 13y ago
> Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? There's the Office of the Federal Public Defender in each Federal judicial district, and the umbrella Office of Defender Services inside the U.S. Courts system (fd.org). They have some staff who work on advancing the interests of Federal criminal defendants collectively (for example, by lobbying the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Sentencing Guidelines revisions), not just representing individuals. One could also argue that the PCLOB and individual agencies' privacy offices are in the category that you mention, although I don't know if that's the way that their staff would see or describe their missions.
nknighthb 13y ago
> Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? In the US, a form of grand jury which is far more expansive than the indictment rubber-stamping machine most are familiar with, and which has largely fallen into disuse, acted in such a capacity on a local level. They had extensive, autonomous powers to investigate anything from mundane bureaucratic crap (think "this pothole still hasn't been fixed!") to corruption. A few states, like California, maintain this in one form or another, but they don't often get a lot of attention these days. Once in a great while, a rubber-stamp grand jury discovers they still technically have vast powers, goes "rogue", and brings down the local good-ol'-boys network. We need more of these, and we need them on a federal level with powers to investigate all federal agencies.
- legutierr 13y ago
  > Once in a great while, a rubber-stamp grand jury discovers they still technically have vast powers, goes "rogue", and brings down the local good-ol'-boys network. Do you know of any specific instances of this occurring? I'm sure it would make for interesting reading.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    It would, if it were something that got documented well. Grand jury investigations are secret, so we mostly hear about the results rather than the how, and on the rare occasions something like this happens, it's almost always small town. The highest-profile case I can point you to is somewhat disappointing. A few years ago, a grand jury in Harris County (Houston), Texas kicked the prosecutors out and proceeded to run its own investigation into issues surrounding BAT vans. They didn't return criminal indictments before disbanding, but made clear there were ethical violations. Last I heard, though, the DA's office had succeeded in thoroughly pissing off some local judges and was under investigation by a special prosecutor and yet another grand jury for intimidation of jurors and other misconduct involving the first grand jury. I don't know what's happened since.

josh2600 13y ago

In other societies, what you're referring to might be called an Ombudsman, or in our judicial system, a district attorney. There is no such counterpoint in government, save our elected officials. Specifically, the reason the Commander in Chief is a civilian seems to be for this exact reason. Anyways, I think the concept of a dissenting opinion would be welcome from the public's perspective and shunned from the bureaucratic one.

alan_cx 13y ago
Funny though, the elected lot want votes. On one hand "we" give them power; on the other hand, they really don't want our opinions.

RexRollman 13y ago

It's theater. They don't intend to let anything interfere with their surveillance of everyone.

mpyne 13y ago

Do you have any clue what "administratively attached to a government element" means? It sounds like you don't. The issue is that a security clearance for access to given information requires three things: 1. A screening (eligibility for a security clearance). This can be done outside of government. 2. Need to know. Our 'review group' will certainly have that. 3. Permission of the unit Director/CO/OIC. This is why people might need to be "administratively attached" to a unit. It's one of those stereotypical "Catch-22" situations. If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't. By attaching them to a unit 'administratively' they simply declare which unit Director/CO/OIC is going to get their head put on the chopping block if one of those privacy groups leaks classified information. Now there are reasons to be afraid of government involvements in groups. The easy thing is financial interest, so we just need to make sure the reviewers from the NGOs volunteer or are paid from outside the government. Another concern is performance evaluation. You wouldn't want the person "signing the FITREP" to be the person with an existing interest in the outcome of the decision one way or the other. But I don't see that here. Either way the report hasn't even been published yet, so how can you possibly know that it must be whitewashed? At least wait for the damn thing to be published before you unleash the attacks you undoubtedly already have queued up. :P

Helianthus 13y ago
>If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't. This is bureaucratic legerdemain that falls within the purview of the original criticism: given the leash, bureaucracy will exonerate bureaucracy.
- mpyne 13y ago
  It's no more or less stupid than recording the name of an person where the name is unknown as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe". If you're here to tell me that admin is surreal then, hey, I agree with you. But this here is as innocuous as bureaucracy can possibly get.
malandrew 13y ago

schoen 13y ago

> Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? There's the Office of the Federal Public Defender in each Federal judicial district, and the umbrella Office of Defender Services inside the U.S. Courts system (fd.org). They have some staff who work on advancing the interests of Federal criminal defendants collectively (for example, by lobbying the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Sentencing Guidelines revisions), not just representing individuals. One could also argue that the PCLOB and individual agencies' privacy offices are in the category that you mention, although I don't know if that's the way that their staff would see or describe their missions.

nknighthb 13y ago

> Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? In the US, a form of grand jury which is far more expansive than the indictment rubber-stamping machine most are familiar with, and which has largely fallen into disuse, acted in such a capacity on a local level. They had extensive, autonomous powers to investigate anything from mundane bureaucratic crap (think "this pothole still hasn't been fixed!") to corruption. A few states, like California, maintain this in one form or another, but they don't often get a lot of attention these days. Once in a great while, a rubber-stamp grand jury discovers they still technically have vast powers, goes "rogue", and brings down the local good-ol'-boys network. We need more of these, and we need them on a federal level with powers to investigate all federal agencies.

legutierr 13y ago
> Once in a great while, a rubber-stamp grand jury discovers they still technically have vast powers, goes "rogue", and brings down the local good-ol'-boys network. Do you know of any specific instances of this occurring? I'm sure it would make for interesting reading.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  It would, if it were something that got documented well. Grand jury investigations are secret, so we mostly hear about the results rather than the how, and on the rare occasions something like this happens, it's almost always small town. The highest-profile case I can point you to is somewhat disappointing. A few years ago, a grand jury in Harris County (Houston), Texas kicked the prosecutors out and proceeded to run its own investigation into issues surrounding BAT vans. They didn't return criminal indictments before disbanding, but made clear there were ethical violations. Last I heard, though, the DA's office had succeeded in thoroughly pissing off some local judges and was under investigation by a special prosecutor and yet another grand jury for intimidation of jurors and other misconduct involving the first grand jury. I don't know what's happened since.