White House denies intel chief will lead NSA surveillance review

Forcing committee members to go through Clapper to get actual data is a farce.<p>&quot;Mhh, so you want to examine all our internet-related projects, right? Let me check... &lt;clickety clack&gt; I&#x27;m sorry, we don&#x27;t really keep a list of links or anything... PRISM? Ah, that&#x27;s a bitch, docs are all over the place, the only one who knows how to get anything is &lt;random clerk who&#x27;ll start a two-year sabbatical tomorrow&gt;. XKEYSCORE? That&#x27;s even worse! The project manager left two weeks ago and we can&#x27;t find the key to his drawer. This place is mad, I tell you! Maybe you could start with this &lt;completely irrelevant and minuscule&gt; project I&#x27;ve found here? There&#x27;s full specs, meeting memos, everything, about 13436 pages... just let me know once you&#x27;re done with it, I&#x27;m sure I can find you a lot of juicy stuff!&quot;<p>(<i>This looks more and more like a classic case of &quot;let&#x27;s bury the whole thing by instituting a committee that will take years and produce a pointless report nobody will ever read&quot;</i>)

<p><pre><code> Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she believes the review group can produce meaningful results if it includes privacy advocates, academics and other people who are independent from the surveillance agencies. </code></pre> Unfortunately not going to happen...<p><pre><code> &quot;The members will have access to classified information so they need to be administratively attached to a government element but the review process and findings will be their own,&quot; Turner said. </code></pre> Something as serious as this needs an adversarial process. Drawing from only people &quot;administratively attached to a government element&quot; guarantees that won&#x27;t happen. Is there any area of the government whose sole role is protecting the rights of the people against the government? I know that the courts are supposed to provide this oversight when they declare something unconstitutional, but the courts hear from advocates who are not &quot;administratively attached&quot;<p>Personally, I would like to see a process whereby several groups independently come up with their own conclusions and publish those independent opinions separately before synthesizing one report. With only one report published, we can be certain that it will be whitewashed, diluted and redacted. At the very least if there is a report, they should include the notion of publishing a &quot;dissenting opinion&quot; like the courts do.

&gt; &quot;The members will have access to classified information so they need to be administratively attached to a government element but the review process and findings will be their own,&quot; Turner said.<p>Annnd we see how we got here in the first place.<p>How can a representative government be representative when vast portions of it are protected with total secrecy? ...with artificial attempts at transparency?

<i>&quot;They&#x27;ll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy — particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public,&quot; Obama said.</i><p>This quote illustrates the problem. Overturning the 4th amendment requires a congressional super-majority, not the assurance of a politician who has already violated the public&#x27;s trust.

Is the public expected to believe that a panel hand-picked by someone deeply involved with surveillance, and appointed by the administration will conclude that the investigators&#x27; benefactors were guilty of anything?

This is like how the US lets the police investigate police misconduct. Absolute joke.

Clapper having any say into the matter is unacceptable; Have they not heard of independent third parties?<p>Here&#x27;s a conspiracy theory: Clapper will sit in the panel, come up with perfectly valid reasons to veto anyone his thugs do not have dirt on, and will proceed to blackmail his agency&#x27;s way into being completely unchecked. Corruption is not rooted out by the corrupt; It is rooted out by having third parties check everything until well after the corruption is gone, to give the latent seeds no chance to take root.

Put Snowden&#x27;s dad and Swartz&#x27;s dad on the review board.

&quot;...Republican congressman Justin Amash, who led a revolt that narrowly failed in its effort to cut NSA funding, tweeted:<p>&quot;Pres Obama believes man who lied to public in congressional hearing about NSA should lead NSA review process meant to build public trust&quot;.<p>Can anyone wrap their head around that the `Pres&#x27; is this oblivious to both DC and public opinion?

Could someone rectify the apparent contradictions between yesterday&#x27;s memo and today&#x27;s announcement? Was it misread or something? How could they do an about face so quickly?

I&#x27;m sure it will be some other puppet on a string.