[rad-green] Snowden: Candidates Should Declare Their Stance on "Costly Failure of NSA's Unconstitutional Mass Surveillance Program"

*https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/26/presidential-candidates-should-declare-their-stance-costly-failure-nsas
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/26/presidential-candidates-should-declare-their-stance-costly-failure-nsas>Common
Dreams          February 26, 2020Presidential Candidates Should Declare
Their Stance on "Costly Failure of the NSA's Unconstitutional Mass
Surveillance Program," Says SnowdenThe whistleblower's call follows
reporting by the New York Times showing the agency's sprawling photo data
collection effort came with a $100 million pricetag and nearly no
success.by Andrea Germanos, staff writer*

[image: Besides "massively invade our privacy, the U.S. National Security
Agency's bulk collection of the phone numbers we called produced only one
'significant' investigation," said Human Rights Watch executive director
Kenneth Roth. (Image EFF Photos/flickr/cc)]

*Besides "massively invade our privacy, the U.S. National Security Agency's
bulk collection of the phone numbers we called produced only one
'significant' investigation," said Human Rights Watch executive director
Kenneth Roth. (Image EFF Photos
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/electronicfrontierfoundation/9549874922/>/flickr/cc)*

National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden said Tuesday that
2020 White House candidates should publicly declare their stance on the
U.S. government's "unconstitutional mass surveillance program."

Snowden made the comments following a *New York Times* report
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/nsa-phone-program.html> showing
the agency's sprawling photo data collection effort was hugely expensive
and largely useless.

BIG: Presidential hopefuls should be asked their position on the costly
failure of the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance program, part of
which is up for renewal on March 15th. Today's report reveals a long
history of abuse & no meaningful success.https://t.co/P8s4T1WdY1

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 25, 2020
<https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1232446032908148738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

Charlie Savage's reporting
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/nsa-phone-program.html> on
the program under the USA Freedom Act of 2015, which is set to expire March
15, showed the suspended call records program "cost $100 million from 2015
to 2019" and produced "a single significant investigation." The *Times* report
cited a declassified, partly censored version of a report from the
congressionally-created Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

The NSA shut down the program—initially exposed by Snowden in 2013 and then
modified in 2015—last year.

As the *Times* reported,

With a judge's permission, the agency could query the system to swiftly
obtain the records not only of a suspect, but of everyone with whom that
suspect had been in contact.

The exponential math meant that the agency was still gathering a huge
number of call and text records about Americans, however. In 2018, the
agency obtained 14 court orders, but gathered 434 million call detail
records involving 19 million phone numbers.

The reporting elicited swift reaction from privacy advocates.

"This notorious NSA spying program—which vacuumed up Americans' phone
records by the billion—came at huge cost in terms of both dollars and
privacy, but generated only two unique leads," said
<https://twitter.com/PatrickCToomey/status/1232663586868203521> Patrick
Toomey, staff attorney at the ACLU's National Security Project.

"Imagine what could have been done with $100 million," quipped
<https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/1232692571484409857> Human Rights Watch
executive director Kenneth Roth, "other than massively invade our privacy,
the US National Security Agency's bulk collection of the phone numbers we
called produced only one 'significant' investigation."

Shutting down costly, intrusive, and ineffective surveillance programs
makes sense. Would make even more sense not to launch them in the first
place. https://t.co/jQ4noe0k1M

— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) February 25, 2020
<https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/1232412366219943943?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

At the cost of $100 million and phone logs from every American, the NSA's
phone metadata program led to just two new intelligence reports from 2015
to 2019. Yes, *two.*

This kind of surveillance needlessly threatens all journalists and their
sources. https://t.co/Z8BQ6ve3oR

— Freedom of the Press (@FreedomofPress) February 26, 2020
<https://twitter.com/FreedomofPress/status/1232709379994071049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

"Yes, it's great that NSA finally acknowledges the Section 215 call records
program was a massive waste of time and money," said Faiza Patel,
co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan
Center. "But, there would be no pressure on them to fix it if not for
Snowden. And the pointless invasions of American's privacy is staggering."

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the bottom line is clear:
"It's time to end it."

New declassified information says what we suspected all along: the NSA's
Call Detail Records program is invasive, expensive, and produces almost no
actual intelligence.

It's time to end it. https://t.co/1joSdcnpQl

— EFF (@EFF) February 26, 2020
<https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1232472346189008896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

House Democrats are weighing doing just that.

As *The Hill* reported
<https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/484628-congress-eyes-killing-controversial-surveillance-program>
 Wednesday,

House Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees unveiled
legislation this week that would repeal the NSA's authority to run the
program. That bill is scheduled to get a vote in the Judiciary Committee on
Wednesday.

As for Snowden's call to the presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) appears to be the only Democratic contender who's come out in
opposition to the program, Sarah Lazare reported
<http://inthesetimes.com/article/22326/bernie-sanders-patriot-act-safeguarding-americans-private-security-records>
 at *In These Times* Monday.

Lazare to referred to Sanders's tweet from Feb. 11 in which he said
<https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1227347339481899009>: "I voted
against the Patriot Act in 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2015. I strongly oppose
its reauthorization next month. I believe that in a democratic and
constitutional form of government, we cannot sacrifice the civil liberties
that make us a free country."

The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) in November
gave a three-month extension to three surveillance provisions, Lazare noted.

"By coming out now against the mass surveillance powers," she wrote,
"Sanders appears to be signaling to the CPC that it should find its
backbone on this issue. And those who stay silent are implicitly
encouraging the opposite."

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcxN8-AsU-Xt9yNtyX9%3D3vd-euPXDREDzyifna6gpat7qg%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>