Politics

Privacy Advocates Seek More Openness on NSA Surveillance

Published

10 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

Obama Attorney General Nominee Heads for Vote After 5 Months

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

23 hours ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌

Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

Published

2 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock.

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Congress Says Yes to Rep. Simon’s Disability Hiring and Small Biz Support Bill

“As the first congenitally blind person to serve in Congress, I am incredibly honored to lead and excited to celebrate the House passage of the ‘ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act,’” said Simon.

Published

2 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the “ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act” on June 3, marking a major win for U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12) and co-sponsor Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-08) in their bipartisan effort to promote inclusive hiring and boost small business accessibility.

The legislation establishes a federal partnership between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Council on Disability to help small businesses across the U.S. hire more individuals with disabilities and provide resources for disabled entrepreneurs.

“Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities, making them accessible for all will maximize local economic activity and broaden the job market to everyone who is seeking to contribute to their communities,” she continued. “Investments in business and talent in our communities shouldn’t be limited to just those who are not disabled. Full stop, period.”

Since taking office in January 2025, Simon has introduced six bills. The House has approved two of them: this measure and the “Assisting Small Businesses, Not Fraudsters Act.”

Simon, a lifelong disability rights advocate and former BART board member, has focused her career on improving access, from public transit to the job market.