[Infowarrior] - NSA phone data collection 'not essential', judiciary chair says – live

[Richard Forno]

(DiFi again showing she isn't paying attention to the witnesses' testimony and reminding us that she's a clueless surveillance apologist.  --rick)


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/nsa-review-panel-reforms-congress-live

RECESS .... 

Here's a summary of where things stand:

• The five members of the president's review group on intelligence and communications technologies appeared before congress to discuss their 46 recommendations for intelligence reform unveiled last month. 

• Up for discussion were potential reforms including the relocation or dispersal of the government's phone records database; requiring court orders for database queries and/or national security letters; introducing a public advocate on the Fisa court; and making the process by which the government obtains information through national security letters or Fisa court orders more transparent.

• A mini-debate broke out as to whether the most widely discussed NSA surveillance program, the bulk collection of phone records, had been essential to preventing any terror attacks. Chairman Patrick Leahy said no. Senator Dianne Feinstein said yes. "The word 'essential' I think is a word that is often debated," Feinstein said.

• Former CIA acting director Michael Morell equated phone metadata with phone call content, in terms of how sensitive and information-rich it is. "There is not in my mind a sharp distinction between metadata and content," Morell said. 

• Former counter-terror czar Richard Clarke explained that while it was not possible to replay history, the failure to prevent 9/11 is best put down to the failure of intelligence agencies to communicate, as opposed to the lack of a bulk phone records collection program. Clarke also dismissed the need for warrantless surveillance in a hypothetical scenario in which 9/11 was stopped. 

• Morell said that just because bulk phone records collection may not have stopped a terror plot, that did not mean the program was not valuable. "The program only has to be successful once to be invaluable," he said. 

---
Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.