Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group

[Douglas Lucas]

>From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.

On 04/02/2014 09:56 PM, dan at geer.org wrote:
> [ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
> 
> 
> www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
> 
> What I Told the NSA
> 
>    Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall,
>    which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance
>    and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA
>    staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my
>    work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here,
>    in brief, is what I told them:
> 
>      From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member
>      of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am
>      a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory
>      Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the
>      American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about
>      the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
> 
>      I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of
>      the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find
>      that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots
>      against the United States and its allies in the years since
>      9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates
>      with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the
>      rule of law.
> 
>      Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues,
>      the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its
>      authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon
>      discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its
>      errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had
>      knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized
>      activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted
>      internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds
>      of its lawful authority.
> 
>      This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the
>      authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of
>      the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and
>      much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing
>      the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA,
>      but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign
>      Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs
>      -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they
>      posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job --
>      it implemented the authorities it was given.
> 
>      It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after
>      Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's
>      foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being
>      severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather
>      than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard
>      of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was
>      doing its job.  It pained me to realize that the hard-working,
>      dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often
>      working for far less pay than they could have earned in the
>      private sector because they were determined to help protect
>      their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press
>      for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents,
>      the Congress, and the courts.
> 
>      Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an
>      excuse.  But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program
>      that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would
>      have been justified in refusing to perform the functions
>      assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary.
>      Although the Review Group found that many of those programs
>      need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so
>      clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the
>      NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
> 
>      Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage
>      the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the
>      merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in
>      which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other
>      entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the
>      leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were
>      forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about
>      the nature and implementation of its programs.
> 
>      To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the
>      NSA.  They should not. Distrust is essential to effective
>      democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant
>      and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and
>      balances. The work it does, however important to the safety
>      of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental
>      American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons
>      in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA
>      -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future
>      of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but
>      also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully
>      enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
> 
>      In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the
>      respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should
>      never, ever, be trusted.
> 
>