ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Apr 10 15 7:03 PM
By exposing the NSA’s spying regime, Snowden forced the Justice Department to shut down a separate phone-surveillance operation. The polarizing leaker of government secrets rocketed back into public awareness, thanks to an interview with viral-hit-maker and comedian-with-a-conscience John Oliver. Then Snowden enthusiasts installed a bust of him in a Brooklyn park—which was later replaced with a hologram of his likeness. And actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is traipsing around Washington, D.C., filming scenes as Snowden for the Oliver Stone movie about the fugitive slated for release later this year. But likely nothing will bring the former National Security Agency contractor as much satisfaction as finding out this week that his 2013 disclosures appear to have prompted the Justice Department to pull the plug on a secret mass-surveillance program—one he isn't even responsible for exposing. USA Today reported on Tuesday that a Justice Department program had, from 1992 to 2013, collected records of Americans' international phone calls. Described as a "blueprint" for the NSA's controversial dragnet, the program, housed within the Drug Enforcement Administration, "amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking," according to the paper. Those countries included U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as parts of Europe and nearly all of central and South America.
The polarizing leaker of government secrets rocketed back into public awareness, thanks to an interview with viral-hit-maker and comedian-with-a-conscience John Oliver. Then Snowden enthusiasts installed a bust of him in a Brooklyn park—which was later replaced with a hologram of his likeness. And actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is traipsing around Washington, D.C., filming scenes as Snowden for the Oliver Stone movie about the fugitive slated for release later this year.
But likely nothing will bring the former National Security Agency contractor as much satisfaction as finding out this week that his 2013 disclosures appear to have prompted the Justice Department to pull the plug on a secret mass-surveillance program—one he isn't even responsible for exposing.
USA Today reported on Tuesday that a Justice Department program had, from 1992 to 2013, collected records of Americans' international phone calls. Described as a "blueprint" for the NSA's controversial dragnet, the program, housed within the Drug Enforcement Administration, "amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking," according to the paper. Those countries included U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as parts of Europe and nearly all of central and South America.
Read more @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/how-edward-snowden-unwittingly-killed-a-mass-surveillance-program-20150408
The bulk collection of phone records by the DEA preceded the NSA's own program The U.S. started keeping from 1992 records of international phone calls made by Americans, under a joint program of the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a newspaper report. The secret program, which aimed to counter drug trafficking, collected logs of "virtually all telephone calls" from the U.S. to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, according to USA Today, which quoted current and former officials associated with the operation. But the content of the calls was not recorded as part of the collection. The existence of the program was disclosed in January by a DEA official in testimony to a federal court, but the details were sketchy. The program preceded the bulk phone records collection by the National Security Agency in the country's fight against terrorism, which came into sharp focus in June 2013 after disclosures by the agency's former contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was collecting call metadata, which does not include content, from telecommunications companies. The DEA got hold of the records using administrative subpoenas that allowed it to collect records "relevant or material to" federal drug investigations, according to USA Today. Some telecommunications companies were hesitant to provide the information in such volumes, but the subpoenas were not challenged in court. Those companies that were reluctant received letters from the DOJ asking them to comply.
The bulk collection of phone records by the DEA preceded the NSA's own program
The U.S. started keeping from 1992 records of international phone calls made by Americans, under a joint program of the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a newspaper report.
The secret program, which aimed to counter drug trafficking, collected logs of "virtually all telephone calls" from the U.S. to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, according to USA Today, which quoted current and former officials associated with the operation. But the content of the calls was not recorded as part of the collection.
The existence of the program was disclosed in January by a DEA official in testimony to a federal court, but the details were sketchy.
The program preceded the bulk phone records collection by the National Security Agency in the country's fight against terrorism, which came into sharp focus in June 2013 after disclosures by the agency's former contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was collecting call metadata, which does not include content, from telecommunications companies.
The DEA got hold of the records using administrative subpoenas that allowed it to collect records "relevant or material to" federal drug investigations, according to USA Today. Some telecommunications companies were hesitant to provide the information in such volumes, but the subpoenas were not challenged in court. Those companies that were reluctant received letters from the DOJ asking them to comply.
Read more @ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/572167/us-drug-enforcement-amassed-bulk-phone-records-decades/
Ah.... Bush senior was in charge when the spying on everyone started.... hummmm
The US government started keeping secret records of international phone calls made by Americans in 1992 in a program intended to combat drug trafficking, USA Today reported on Tuesday, citing current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials. The program, run by the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was halted by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 amid the fallout from revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA data collection, the paper reported. The DEA program was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of US citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime, USA Today said.
The US government started keeping secret records of international phone calls made by Americans in 1992 in a program intended to combat drug trafficking, USA Today reported on Tuesday, citing current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The program, run by the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was halted by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 amid the fallout from revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA data collection, the paper reported.
The DEA program was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of US citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime, USA Today said.
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-tracked-phone-calls-for-two-decades-in-anti-drug-program-usa-today-2015-4?IR=T
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/
The bulk collection of phone data goes back to 1992, with a DEA program that inspired the NSA The bulk collection of phone calls by government agencies didn't start with the programs that Edward Snowden revealed, nor even with the tracking put in place after 9/11. It goes back to the Bush years. The first President Bush.
The bulk collection of phone calls by government agencies didn't start with the programs that Edward Snowden revealed, nor even with the tracking put in place after 9/11. It goes back to the Bush years. The first President Bush.
Read more @ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a14974/dea-phone-surveillance-decades/
Read more @ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/report-dea-monitored-americans-overseas-phone-calls-116745.html
Media coverage of John Oliver’s critique about the lack of discussion surrounding government surveillance programs seems to prove his point. Much, if not most, of the attention given to Sunday night’s episode of Last Week Tonight has focused on Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden instead of focusing on the fact that the law governing one of the most heavily-criticized surveillance programs is up for potential reauthorization in less than two months. We’re talking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision allowing the NSA to collect vast quantities of Americans’ phone records. Given that Section 215 is on track to sunset in 55 days on June 1 — and because Congress will be out of session starting May 21, which is only 45 days away — we thought it would be useful to provide the following list of Just Security posts on the issue along with government and court documents on the program in hopes of encouraging an informed public debate on the topic. (While it is most commonly known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision is also known as Section 501 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861.)
Media coverage of John Oliver’s critique about the lack of discussion surrounding government surveillance programs seems to prove his point. Much, if not most, of the attention given to Sunday night’s episode of Last Week Tonight has focused on Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden instead of focusing on the fact that the law governing one of the most heavily-criticized surveillance programs is up for potential reauthorization in less than two months. We’re talking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision allowing the NSA to collect vast quantities of Americans’ phone records.
Given that Section 215 is on track to sunset in 55 days on June 1 — and because Congress will be out of session starting May 21, which is only 45 days away — we thought it would be useful to provide the following list of Just Security posts on the issue along with government and court documents on the program in hopes of encouraging an informed public debate on the topic.
(While it is most commonly known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision is also known as Section 501 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861.)
Read more @ http://justsecurity.org/21828/talking-section-215-readers-guide/
Most Americans have a fuzzy understanding of exactly what the National Security Agency can and cannot see with its surveillance programs, much less what a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden tried to do about it. That’s the finding, anyway, of informal street interviews by John Oliver’s crew at Last Week Tonight on HBO. Oliver devoted his April 5 show to the NSA spying story. It included an exclusive interview with Snowden, who is living in Russia after the State Department canceled his passport. And it included the topic of this fact-check: Can emails sent between two people living in the United States unwittingly end up on the computer screen of some NSA analyst? Oliver, who blends comedy with journalism, framed the discussion around the NSA peeping on nude pictures. Oliver asked Snowden to describe the capability of various NSA surveillance programs in relation to nude pictures sent by Americans, starting with "702 surveillance." This refers to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section was added in 2008 and was renewed under President Barack Obama in 2012. Could the NSA see a picture of, say, Oliver’s privates under this provision, he asked? "Yes," Snowden said, "the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which section 702 falls under, allows the bulk collection of internet communications that are one-end foreign."
Most Americans have a fuzzy understanding of exactly what the National Security Agency can and cannot see with its surveillance programs, much less what a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden tried to do about it.
That’s the finding, anyway, of informal street interviews by John Oliver’s crew at Last Week Tonight on HBO.
Oliver devoted his April 5 show to the NSA spying story. It included an exclusive interview with Snowden, who is living in Russia after the State Department canceled his passport. And it included the topic of this fact-check: Can emails sent between two people living in the United States unwittingly end up on the computer screen of some NSA analyst?
Oliver, who blends comedy with journalism, framed the discussion around the NSA peeping on nude pictures.
Oliver asked Snowden to describe the capability of various NSA surveillance programs in relation to nude pictures sent by Americans, starting with "702 surveillance." This refers to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section was added in 2008 and was renewed under President Barack Obama in 2012.
Could the NSA see a picture of, say, Oliver’s privates under this provision, he asked?
"Yes," Snowden said, "the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which section 702 falls under, allows the bulk collection of internet communications that are one-end foreign."
Read more @ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/
The reason I can see so glaringly is that most people are addicted to the latest technology.... so addicted they cannot stop using it....
A lot of readers have seen John Oliver’s amusing interview of Edward Snowden. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth a watch. One of Oliver’s themes is that Snowden actually hasn’t had a major impact on American politics. Surveillance law is too complicated, Oliver suggests, and Snowden doesn’t have a simple message. But I think there are other reasons why Snowden hasn’t had a big impact on American public opinion — and also reasons that probably doesn’t matter for achieving Snowden’s goals. Here are some tentative thoughts on this big topic. I’ll hope to follow up later, with more firm views, in light of comments and responses. I’ll begin with public opinion. Although the Snowden disclosures have impacted public opinion about government surveillance in some ways, they haven’t caused a major shift. Different polls are worded in different ways and suggest different things. But my overall sense is that public opinion has long been roughly evenly divided on U.S. government surveillance and continues to be roughly evenly divided post-Snowden. For example, in 2006, a poll on NSA surveillance suggested that 51% found NSA surveillance acceptable while 47% found it unacceptable. Shortly after the Snowden disclosures began, public opinion was equally divided about the Section 215 program. And just a few weeks ago, a Pew Research poll from last month found public opinion pretty evenly divided again:
A lot of readers have seen John Oliver’s amusing interview of Edward Snowden. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth a watch. One of Oliver’s themes is that Snowden actually hasn’t had a major impact on American politics. Surveillance law is too complicated, Oliver suggests, and Snowden doesn’t have a simple message. But I think there are other reasons why Snowden hasn’t had a big impact on American public opinion — and also reasons that probably doesn’t matter for achieving Snowden’s goals. Here are some tentative thoughts on this big topic. I’ll hope to follow up later, with more firm views, in light of comments and responses.
I’ll begin with public opinion. Although the Snowden disclosures have impacted public opinion about government surveillance in some ways, they haven’t caused a major shift. Different polls are worded in different ways and suggest different things. But my overall sense is that public opinion has long been roughly evenly divided on U.S. government surveillance and continues to be roughly evenly divided post-Snowden. For example, in 2006, a poll on NSA surveillance suggested that 51% found NSA surveillance acceptable while 47% found it unacceptable. Shortly after the Snowden disclosures began, public opinion was equally divided about the Section 215 program. And just a few weeks ago, a Pew Research poll from last month found public opinion pretty evenly divided again:
Read more @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/09/edward-snowdens-impact/
Read more @ http://tallahasseescene.com/2015/04/ugly-truth-government-surveillance/
If you haven't gotten yourself access to HBO yet, it's officially time. John Oliver time, that is. In this week's Last Week Tonight, Oliver makes Edward Snowden very sad by making him face the reality that the average American just isn't sure who he is or what he did*. Oliver showed clips of "man on the street" interviews with New Yorkers who either didn't really recognize Snowden's name or thought he was the guy who runs WikiLeaks. It was interesting and sad—but not as sad as Snowden's face. Poor fella. In this bonus clip from the episode, Snowden reminds us all that our passwords are terrible and it's time to get more creative. All my new passwords: MargretThatcheris110%SEXY
Read more @ http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/04/09/your-passwords-make-edward-snowden-sad
Lawyer Elizabeth Knight is fighting for user protection but fears new European laws won’t go far enough When Edward Snowden’s disclosures of large scale, secretive state surveillance began to emerge via the Guardian newspaper nearly two years ago, human rights lawyer Elizabeth Knight saw her perspective shift. “With Snowden’s revelations, I realised the biggest human rights issue, in the UK certainly – and more broadly – was privacy. That’s really what attracted me to Open Rights Group,” says the solicitor, who a year ago became the legal director of the UK digital rights and civil liberties advocacy organisation. She describes Open Rights Group (ORG) as “an organisation that promotes human rights in the digital age”, with a particular focus on privacy and freedom of expression. In that role, the group has been to the forefront of confronting the UK government over Snowden’s disclosures of mass communications surveillance by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Some of the 200,000-plus documents handed over by Snowden indicated GCHQ had been routinely tapping all data running over major fibreoptic cables running in and out of Britain, including subsea cables to Ireland. “The reason those disclosures are so important is they were the first revelation of the failure of our own oversight mechanisms,” she says. UK politicians and designated oversight bodies, such as the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, were unaware of the scale of spying and the sheer volume of data-gathering, done wholesale and without any particular target in mind, she says. The UK’s intelligence services can process 21 petabytes – 39 billion pieces of data – a day, according to the Open Rights website. “We had to learn about this from a foreign whistleblower, rather than our own mechanisms,” Knight says.
When Edward Snowden’s disclosures of large scale, secretive state surveillance began to emerge via the Guardian newspaper nearly two years ago, human rights lawyer Elizabeth Knight saw her perspective shift.
“With Snowden’s revelations, I realised the biggest human rights issue, in the UK certainly – and more broadly – was privacy. That’s really what attracted me to Open Rights Group,” says the solicitor, who a year ago became the legal director of the UK digital rights and civil liberties advocacy organisation.
She describes Open Rights Group (ORG) as “an organisation that promotes human rights in the digital age”, with a particular focus on privacy and freedom of expression.
In that role, the group has been to the forefront of confronting the UK government over Snowden’s disclosures of mass communications surveillance by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Some of the 200,000-plus documents handed over by Snowden indicated GCHQ had been routinely tapping all data running over major fibreoptic cables running in and out of Britain, including subsea cables to Ireland.
“The reason those disclosures are so important is they were the first revelation of the failure of our own oversight mechanisms,” she says.
UK politicians and designated oversight bodies, such as the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, were unaware of the scale of spying and the sheer volume of data-gathering, done wholesale and without any particular target in mind, she says. The UK’s intelligence services can process 21 petabytes – 39 billion pieces of data – a day, according to the Open Rights website.
“We had to learn about this from a foreign whistleblower, rather than our own mechanisms,” Knight says.
A broad group of civil-rights, technology and political groups from across the spectrum has developed a new initiative to advocate for the repeal of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the part that provides the authority for the bulk collection of phone metadata and other information. The new group is calling itself Fight215.org and comprises more than 30 organizations, including the ACLU, the EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Internet Archive, Silent Circle and Human Rights Watch. The members of the coalition are using the upcoming June 1 expiration of Section 215 as the impetus for people to call members of Congress and urge them to vote against the renewal of that provision. Section 215 of the Patriot Act gives the National Security Agency the ability to collect and store massive amounts of bulk data, including metadata associated with cell phone calls. That metadata includes things such as caller and recipient numbers, length of call and other data that privacy advocates argue can be used to build profiles of targets who have nothing to do with any terrorism investigations. A year ago President Barack Obama laid out a plan that would end the Section 215 bulk collection as it’s currently conducted and instead would keep the data at the telecom providers and require agencies to get an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to query a provider about a specific phone number.
If you've been paying attention to officialdom's recent demands for more Internet surveillance and encryption back doors, you may be experiencing 1990s flashbacks. One fine day in 1991, an ambitious senator named Joe Biden introduced legislation declaring that telecommunications companies "shall ensure" that their hardware includes backdoors for government eavesdropping. Biden's proposal was followed by the introduction of the Clipper Chip by the National Security Agency (NSA) and a remarkable bill, approved by a House of Representatives committee in 1997, that would have outlawed encryption without back doors for the feds. The NSA's encryption device was instantly criticized by civil libertarians, of course, but met its doom when cryptographers discovered that the Clipper Chip's built-in backdoors for government surveillance could be easily sealed off. That 1997 legislation also died, but only after Silicon Valley firms scrambled to inform politicians that encryption was now embedded in web browsers, and criminalizing it would likely not boost U.S. firms' international competitiveness. By the end of the decade, Team Crypto seemed to have won: Government officials were no longer calling for a ban, and the White House even backed away from export restrictions. So did the FBI, the NSA, and the other extrusions of the homeland-surveillance complex recognize their '90s errors and change course? Not exactly. Today demands for mandatory back doors and weakened encryption are nearly as loud as they were a quarter-century ago. The feds' disregard for citizens' privacy has been undimmed by the passage of time. "We need our private sector partners to take a step back, to pause, and to consider changing course," FBI Director James Comey said last fall. "We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard."
If you've been paying attention to officialdom's recent demands for more Internet surveillance and encryption back doors, you may be experiencing 1990s flashbacks.
One fine day in 1991, an ambitious senator named Joe Biden introduced legislation declaring that telecommunications companies "shall ensure" that their hardware includes backdoors for government eavesdropping. Biden's proposal was followed by the introduction of the Clipper Chip by the National Security Agency (NSA) and a remarkable bill, approved by a House of Representatives committee in 1997, that would have outlawed encryption without back doors for the feds.
The NSA's encryption device was instantly criticized by civil libertarians, of course, but met its doom when cryptographers discovered that the Clipper Chip's built-in backdoors for government surveillance could be easily sealed off. That 1997 legislation also died, but only after Silicon Valley firms scrambled to inform politicians that encryption was now embedded in web browsers, and criminalizing it would likely not boost U.S. firms' international competitiveness. By the end of the decade, Team Crypto seemed to have won: Government officials were no longer calling for a ban, and the White House even backed away from export restrictions.
So did the FBI, the NSA, and the other extrusions of the homeland-surveillance complex recognize their '90s errors and change course? Not exactly. Today demands for mandatory back doors and weakened encryption are nearly as loud as they were a quarter-century ago. The feds' disregard for citizens' privacy has been undimmed by the passage of time.
"We need our private sector partners to take a step back, to pause, and to consider changing course," FBI Director James Comey said last fall. "We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard."
Read more @ http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/09/the-feds-want-a-back-door-into
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Tuesday while announcing his presidential campaign to immediately end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records. "The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance," Paul, speaking before a raucous crowd in Kentucky, said. "I believe we can have liberty and security. And I will not compromise your liberty for a false sense of security, not now, not ever. " Paul has been among the most ardent critics of the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs in Congress—a policy position that has grown more pronounced in the two years since the Edward Snowden disclosures began. Some civil-liberties advocates criticized Paul in November of last year, however, when the Kentucky senator cast a crucial no vote against an NSA reform package that failed to advance in the Senate, claiming that it did not go far enough. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is also running for president, was one of four Republicans to support the Democratic-backed measure. Cruz said last week that he was "dismayed" Paul voted against moving the bill.
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Tuesday while announcing his presidential campaign to immediately end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records.
"The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance," Paul, speaking before a raucous crowd in Kentucky, said. "I believe we can have liberty and security. And I will not compromise your liberty for a false sense of security, not now, not ever. "
Paul has been among the most ardent critics of the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs in Congress—a policy position that has grown more pronounced in the two years since the Edward Snowden disclosures began.
Some civil-liberties advocates criticized Paul in November of last year, however, when the Kentucky senator cast a crucial no vote against an NSA reform package that failed to advance in the Senate, claiming that it did not go far enough. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is also running for president, was one of four Republicans to support the Democratic-backed measure. Cruz said last week that he was "dismayed" Paul voted against moving the bill.
Read more @ http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/04/rand-paul-pledges-immediately-end-nsa-mass-surveillance-if-elected-president/109516/
Read more @ http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-vows-to-end-unconstitutional-surveillance-on-his-first-day-as-president/
Metadata apps for the iPhone
A note first on security for Mac users, taking a hint from the Windows side. Recently, Anthony M. Freed wrote on dark matter, "Analysis of Microsoft Patch Tuesday releases from last year reveals that 97%...
After two years of roadblocks in reforming the National Security Agency programs revealed by Edward Snowden, it seems the viral John Oliver segment and impending program deadline are breathing new life into a reform movement that has seemed stagnant since late last year. Privacy advocates experienced a major setback in November when a surveillance reform bill, the FREEDOM Act, died in a Senate procedural vote. But now they’re back, and with a new, simple question for Americans — Can they see your junk? Playing off Oliver’s hilarious skit, one privacy activist built cantheyseemydick.com, which breaks down how each NSA program could be used to access private communications. Despite its flippant tone, the website offers simple explanations of complex programs that are difficult to understand. On a more serious note, a new coalition of privacy groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched the Fight 215 campaign calling for an end to the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. EFF activist Nadia Kayyali told TechCrunch the organizations launched the campaign today because of the impending deadline, but they were very excited about the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver skit and the attention it has already brought to surveillance reform. With this campaign, the privacy advocates have taken a direct stance, end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records.
After two years of roadblocks in reforming the National Security Agency programs revealed by Edward Snowden, it seems the viral John Oliver segment and impending program deadline are breathing new life into a reform movement that has seemed stagnant since late last year.
Privacy advocates experienced a major setback in November when a surveillance reform bill, the FREEDOM Act, died in a Senate procedural vote. But now they’re back, and with a new, simple question for Americans — Can they see your junk?
Playing off Oliver’s hilarious skit, one privacy activist built cantheyseemydick.com, which breaks down how each NSA program could be used to access private communications. Despite its flippant tone, the website offers simple explanations of complex programs that are difficult to understand.
On a more serious note, a new coalition of privacy groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched the Fight 215 campaign calling for an end to the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records.
EFF activist Nadia Kayyali told TechCrunch the organizations launched the campaign today because of the impending deadline, but they were very excited about the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver skit and the attention it has already brought to surveillance reform.
With this campaign, the privacy advocates have taken a direct stance, end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records.
Read more @ http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/08/surveillance-reform-movement-rallies-ahead-of-june-1-deadline/
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact