Politics

Privacy Advocates Seek More Openness on NSA Surveillance

Published

11 years ago

April 22, 2015

This June 6, 2013 file photo shows the sign outside the National Security Agency (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md. President Barack Obama is hosting a series of meetings this week with lawmakers, privacy advocates and intelligence officials as he nears a final decision on changes to the government's controversial surveillance programs. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

This June 6, 2013 file photo shows the sign outside the National Security Agency (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Congress considers whether to extend the life of a program that sweeps up American phone records, privacy advocates and civil liberties groups say too much about government surveillance remains secret for the public to fully evaluate the program’s reach or effectiveness.

The disclosure two years ago of the National Security Agency’s surveillance efforts prodded the federal government to declassify reams of once-secret documents, including opinions from a secretive intelligence court laying out the program’s origins and legal underpinnings. But critics say key language from the disclosed documents remains censored, the release of information has been selective, and the ongoing trickle of once-secret memos has raised concerns about how many other potentially illuminating documents might yet remain outside the public’s reach.

“That means the public lacks information it needs to understand the significance of the powers that government already has and the significance of the powers that the government is asking for,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The NSA program that collects and stores phone records is conducted under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. The extent of its reach remained secret until Edward Snowden, a former NSA systems administrator, disclosed details of the surveillance in 2013. Amid a public backlash, President Barack Obama has proposed that the NSA stop collecting the records in bulk and instead request them from phone companies as needed for terrorism investigations. Congress is now deciding whether to renew or modify the phone records collection when the law authorizing it expires in June. Legislation is expected to be unveiled Wednesday in the House.

Intelligence officials say the program — it collects the “to” and “from” information on phone calls but not their content — is critical to detecting terrorist plots and have sought to justify it through the ongoing declassification of materials, including from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Among documents released are court opinions outlining how the NSA was first authorized to start collecting bulk phone and Internet records in the hunt for al-Qaida terrorists, previously classified testimony from intelligence officials and NSA analyst training materials.

The disclosures far surpass available public information on other secret programs such as targeted drone strikes against terror suspects. But there are gaps in the information that privacy advocates say prevent the public from being able to fully judge the program’s effectiveness, including the extent to which Section 215 has been construed to allow for other types of bulk collection. Knowing how the government interprets its surveillance authorities, and how broadly they reach, is critical, advocates say.

“If the government is asking for the renewal of this authority, the public has a right to know at least in general terms how the authority is being used, and right now the public doesn’t have that,” Jaffer said.

Last month, a federal judge in New York held in a public records lawsuit that the government could lawfully withhold any secret ruling regarding the use of Section 215 to collect records other than bulk phone records. The judge, William Pauley, said the government had “offered a reasoned and persuasive argument for withholding” information that should not be second-guessed. In that same case, the Justice Department last year released a couple dozen surveillance court rulings but refused to turn over unspecified others, the exact number of which it said was classified.

The government continues to pull back the curtain with periodic new disclosures, such as the Justice Department’s release in January of a 5-year-old memo that said the Commerce Department was not obligated under Section 215 to turn over confidential census data to federal law enforcement. But such disclosures, though welcomed by civil liberties groups, also hint at how much might still be unknown.

The NSA program has also highlighted broader concerns about what privacy advocates say is the federal government’s overreliance on secretive court rulings and classified legal memos. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who opposes the bulk phone records collection, said while he believed the government had released enough information about the law — albeit under pressure — for an informed debate, he was nonetheless concerned about the role of secret legal interpretations.

Though intelligence agencies should be able to conduct secret operations, he said, “they shouldn’t be following secret law.”

Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor, said it was possible that the debate about the phone records program distracts attention from other surveillance efforts that are perhaps more secretive, such as Executive Order 12333, which authorizes foreign intelligence collection overseas without a court order. He also said he thought the government had provided substantial information about what information it was collecting, but was less forthcoming about how that information was used.

“The conversation about collection and a conversation about use are very different conversations,” he said. “And to have one without the other is to, I think, underappreciate the privacy consequences of each.”

Liza Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said it was impossible to know how much information might be out there absent a complete index of how many memos, opinions or court orders even exist.

“We shouldn’t be satisfied that we know everything” because, Goitein said, “we have no way to assess that we know everything.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

As Loretta Lynch’s Wait for Attorney General Comes to an End, Who Is She?

Don't Miss

Privacy Advocates Seek More Openness on NSA Surveillance

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

11 hours ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

4 days ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Families Across the U.S. Are Facing an ‘Affordability Crisis,’ Says United Way Bay Area

United Way’s Real Cost Measure data reveals that 27% of Bay Area households – more than 1 in 4 families – cannot afford essentials such as food, housing, childcare, transportation, and healthcare. A family of four needs $136,872 annually to cover these basic necessities, while two adults working full time at minimum wage earn only $69,326.

Published

5 days ago

December 20, 2025

Oakland Post

Affordable housing is the greatest concern for consumers, it’s followed by the cost of groceries. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

A national poll released this week by Marist shows that 61% of Americans say the economy is not working well for them, while 70% report that their local area is not affordable. This marks the highest share of respondents expressing concern since the question was first asked in 2011.

According to United Way Bay Area (UWBA), the data underscores a growing reality in the region: more than 600,000 Bay Area households are working hard yet still cannot afford their basic needs.

Nationally, the Marist Poll found that rising prices are the top economic concern for 45% of Americans, followed by housing costs at 18%. In the Bay Area, however, that equation is reversed. Housing costs are the dominant driver of the affordability crisis.

“The national numbers confirm what we’re seeing every day through our 211 helpline and in communities across the region,” said Keisha Browder, CEO of United Way Bay Area. “People are working hard, but their paychecks simply aren’t keeping pace with the cost of living. This isn’t about individual failure; it’s about policy choices that leave too many of our neighbors one missed paycheck away from crisis.”

The Bay Area’s affordability crisis is particularly defined by extreme housing costs:

Housing remains the No. 1 reason residents call UWBA’s 211 helpline, accounting for 49% of calls this year.
Nearly 4 in 10 Bay Area households (35%) spend at least 30% of their income on housing, a level widely considered financially dangerous.
Forty percent of households with children under age 6 fall below the Real Cost Measure.
The impact is disproportionate: 49% of Latino households and 41% of Black households struggle to meet basic needs, compared to 15% of white households.

At the national level, the issue of affordability has also become a political flashpoint. In late 2025, President Donald Trump has increasingly referred to “affordability” as a “Democrat hoax” or “con job.” While he previously described himself as the “affordability president,” his recent messaging frames the term as a political tactic used by Democrats to assign blame for high prices.

The president has defended his administration by pointing to predecessors and asserting that prices are declining. However, many Americans remain unconvinced. The Marist Poll shows that 57% of respondents disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, while just 36% approve – his lowest approval rating on the issue across both terms in office.