New Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act

Today, September 26,^th,The Guardian's Paul Lewis reports on a new piece of legislation introduced in the Senate, a bi-partisan effort named The Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act. It “is the most comprehensive package of surveillance reforms presented to the Senate so far. It merges competing legislative proposals announced by various senators before the summer recess, and cherry-picks from ideas contained in a dozen other draft bills that surfaced in both the Senate and House of Representatives, following disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden.”
This bill may see success because of the issue's unique ability to unite democrats and republicans; Senators Wyden, Udall, Blumenthal, and Rand presented the bill which strives to:
Ban the mass collection of phone-record data: The bill would only allow mass collection of data in case of a massive emergency and only from a specific person if he or she is suspected of terrorism or espionage. This ban would not apply to non-citizens.

Ban the collection of internet communication data: Apparently the NSA has already begun to limit this type of mass collection, but the bill would dismantle the “legal framework” that allows it (leaving a loophole for emergencies).

Close search loopholes: “...the bill closes the loopholes that would potentially permit intelligence officials to search wholly domestic American communications that have been swept up in the dragnet, authorised under section 702 of the Fisa Amendment Act, which is intended for targeting foreigners. This section of the bill essentially cleans up this area of law, ensuring that the NSA and partner bodies would need to obtain warrants and prove terrorist connections before searching for communications of US citizens or people residing in the US.”

Reform the surveillance court: “One frequent complaint regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court) is that the bias is built into the system, with judges, whose rulings are not released, only ever hearing the government's case for warrant applications.

The bill seeks to redress that imbalance, inserting some degree of adversarial process into the Fisa court's proceedings, but only in significant or precedent-setting cases. To do so, it would appoint a "constitutional advocate", independent from the executive branch, to serve as a watchdog in important cases – although legal arguments would still be classified, taking place behind closed doors. The advocate would be appointed by the chief justice, choosing from a shortlist created by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a body that will be mandated by statute to nominate attorneys who would be "zealous and effective advocates in defense of civil liberties".
This article is important and relevant to us all, not just as journalists, but as citizens. I don't want to hold my breath, but this type of bi-partisan legislation is what we need as the world continues to change in the information age. I hope this bill doesn't get pushed aside as the budget debates loom over us.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/26/nasa-curiosity-rover-mars-soil-water

Why Snowden was right

When the Edward Snowden story first broke I was of the opinion that many were. None of his leaks seemed to reveal anything that we hadn't learned from other leakers in the last few years. It seemed like Snowden was seeking international fame at the expense of discrediting the U.S. Government. To be fair, a lot of the information that was first leaked was information revealed in the past, perhaps Snowden felt that the public needed to be reminded of the failure of those leaks to affect change. Nonetheless, the leaks increasingly revealed more and more about domestic and overseas spying programs. After I heard Snowden's interview with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald (Guardian, U.S.) in Hong Kong on June 6, 2013 I started to change my mind. I have worked in the intelligence community and I understand that, upon realizing the scope of American misinformation, Snowden felt he had a duty to reveal. It seems many agree that journalists and leakers deserve protection, as The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 is currently being reviewed in Congress and grants better protections for those with delicate information to publish (and leaves the definition of journalist open for interpretation). While it seems cowardly to run, how else could Snowden continue this work and avoid the black hole of a treason trial? Snowden even took care to avoid leaking certain sensitive information and has not acted like someone trying to bring harm to the people.

Today many see Snowden's leak as a blow to the country's protection and security, and that seems to be the difference in the climate and time between Snowden's leak and the eventual release of the Pentagon Papers. The public's trust lies closer to the government today. We have proof that, after 9/11, there were numerous terrorist attacks prevented. The Pentagon Papers were released at a time when the people were willing to look at lies from the government as dangerous for us all. Journalists were more comfortable and supported in the endeavor to ensure the country was “in the light” and deserved to choose their leaders with this knowledge in hand. Today, many citizens don't understand how a meta-data surveillance program affects them, after all they are not committing any crimes. Many people feel that they are not losing much privacy under some of these surveillance programs; but didn't they deserve to debate that before the programs began?

Some support Snowden because they feel a wrong is being committed by our government; others because they feel a wrong is being committed by our telecommunications companies. Glenn Greenwald, of The Guardian, reported on June 5, “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.” Should Verizon have filed some sort of lawsuit or even exposed the request to the media? The FISA court threatens the ability of companies to act in the best interest of their customers and dangles the unimaginably serious threat of treason as a punishment. This threat limits the scope of the debate on security and privacy, limiting our free speech.

But it seems there are even more unintended consequences when starting secret spying programs, according to the Guardian on 20 September,

“Many cryptographic systems in use on the internet, it seems, are not "properly implemented", but have been weakened by flaws deliberately introduced by the NSA as part of a decade-long programme to ensure it can read encrypted traffic.”

and

“...it appears to involve getting software companies and internet service providers to insert secret vulnerabilities, or backdoors, into apparently secure systems. This can be done by introducing deliberate errors into software or hardware designs, many of which are developed in collaboration with the NSA; or by recommending the use of security protocols that the NSA knows to be insecure, in its dual role as cryptographic standards-setter and codebreaker.”

This means all of our secure and encrypted Online exchanges are no longer secure. The NSA's secret search for security has resulted not only in a loss of privacy, but also security.

For those interested in the repercussions of losing privacy Online, check out the United Nation's report here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/nsa-subversion-internet-security-economist

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/united-nations-meets-thirteen-principles-against-unchecked-surveillance

The Rich Get Richer

On September 16^th Forbes magazine released the annual Forbes 400 list of billionaires. The “Facts and Figures” article by Luisa Kroll dissects the report and summarizes the methodology used to collect the data.

The highlights are listed first, Bill Gates is once again the richest in the world and Mark Zuckerberg has made it back to the top 20. “The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth just over $2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. That is a gain of $300 billion from a year ago, and more than double a decade ago. The average net worth of list members is a staggering $5 billion, $800 million more than a year ago and also a record.”

The article continues, “Five years after the financial crisis sent the fortunes of many in the U.S. and around the world tumbling, the wealthiest as a group have finally gained back all that they lost.” The question that came to my mind, gained it back from who?

And then I saw the article from the New York Times, “Despite the addition of more than two million jobs last year, soaring corporate profits and continuing economic growth, income for the typical American household did not rise in 2012 and poverty failed to fall, new data from the Census Bureau show.”

It is important to note that these reports were released within days of one another. Perhaps after learning that "The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth just over $2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. That is a gain of $300 billion from a year ago, and more than double a decade ago. The average net worth of list members is a staggering $5 billion, $800 million more than a year ago and also a record,” the Times felt a comparison article was in order, or maybe it was just the timing of the Census Bureau report.

The Times also reports, “...economists believe that the report understates the degree of income inequality in the United States, by not including, among other things, earnings from capital gains made on rising stock prices.”

According to the very informative section on methodology in the Forbes report, many billionaires were left off the list because their fortunes are dispersed among family members or their net worth, while over $1 billion, was not high enough for this particular study.

Reading these articles side by side seems to confirm the growing awareness of the income gap between the rich and the poor. I think it is worth noting that the majority of high ranking billionaires made their fortunes in the computer and information based industries. I have to ask, do the tax code and patent laws favor these industries? Do the companies providing jobs associated with these industries have more responsibility to the public they are making so much money from? Can the free market be trusted to “trickle down”? I also can't help but think that these tech gurus should have invested more in the public education that could support their industries in country.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/09/16/inside-the-2013-forbes-400-facts-and-figures-on-americas-richest/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/median-income-and-poverty-rate-hold-steady-census-bureau-finds.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1

The Greatest Country?

I started watching The Newsroom on HBO when it premiered because it had the promise of being more than a drama or sitcom. It has not let me down. The character Will McAvoy has the fervor that marks the success of many of our real broadcast journalists. This rant at the beginning of the season sets the stage for the type of newsroom the characters struggle to build. The answers to the hard questions journalists have to ask (and are asked) are usually not pretty and sometimes get in the way of the goals of others. It is easy to pick a side and learn the tines of the fork best used to poke holes in your opponent's argument. It is easy to err on the side of patriotism and sponsor the consumerism that sponsors you. But this is not what a real journalist does.

In response to the question, “What makes this country the greatest in the world?” the answers “diversity, opportunity, and freedom” are obvious answers that are not specific to any one country and must be constantly defended in court, Congress, and the press. The acknowledgment that our country is no longer the greatest in the world indicates that our Constitution and strives for democracy have done a lot for the global effort to shift power into the hands of the people, fore today there are many democracies. There was a time when our values were a beacon for what new democracies ought to try to accomplish.

Something has changed since that time. Was it hubris or ignorance or greed that knocked us off the top? Is it possible to get back to that point? Is there even any room in an intellectual debate to argue who is the greatest or most evil? Words like evil and great are so very subjective. Perhaps there are great men and women striving to create great countries all over the world. If we make some changes we can get back on track to be included in the list of the greats of the 21^st century, rather than be written off after the 20^th.

But before that can happen we need reforms. We need updates to our Constitution, there are new rights and responsibilities that deserve the ultimate protection it can offer. We need a more effective legislative branch; I don't think anyone believes Congress is capable of guiding us to greatness. It is getting harder and harder to find regular citizens who can identify with either party. There are more and more laws being written every day to restrict freedoms. Somehow freedom today means something different depending on what party one belongs to. This kind of “good versus evil” thinking prevents the broader debate from transcending to the real issue, how do we make good better?

On Jefferson and Lippman

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." -- Thomas Jefferson



I believe that when Jefferson said this it was absolutely true for the time. In the 18th century the only way to be informed was in traditional papers, pamphlets, and story telling; any restriction would have seriously harmed the fledgling democracy. It was much harder for the constituents to know when they were being lied to or distracted for some purpose. When press is restricted citizens have to make uniformed decisions about who and what to support. In today's world we are just as reliant on a free press. When restrictions are imposed in some form or another it may be easier for one to go around traditional media to find unrestricted access.
The most dangerous form of restriction we have in the states is not what the government is doing but what corporations are doing behind the scenes. Our elections are fought in advertising today and after the Citizens United court ruling it is easier than ever for a corporation to sponsor a favorable official. When money dominates press it becomes restrictive to those without it. The laws created are to benefit those who paid for them and the people lack accurate representation. When the news is influenced by those who are not journalists the most important information can be lost. But I do believe there are ways to get around restrictions in our information rich communities.

"There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil." -- Walter Lippmann

I really like this quote, it demonstrates many of the fundamental principles of Journalism. As watchdogs and truth tellers journalists will find this applicable at any point in history or the future. I am reminded instantly of the former Mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner. "Shaming the devil" is exactly what happened when dozens of women reported on his despicable behavior and the press relentlessly covered the snowballing controversy (the coverage on Comedy Central was particularly entertaining). When the people of San Diego discovered the devilish behavior of their leader they were able to remove him. This has renewed a debate all over the country about the type of character we want our elected officials to have. Journalists are often successful at exposing the fraud of those who would take advantage of the people and work to improve our democracy.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/02/mayor-san-diego-honor/

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson

I suppose Jefferson meant that a country alive with a healthy and robust tradition in journalism may be capable of ruling itself. I love this idea in principle and we may live to see a day when this is possible. If a country has reached a certain standard in health, nutrition, wealth, education, and employment it may be possible to govern with the guidance of the people and media regulated debate. Through discussion and compromise a country certainly could govern itself with the information provided by unbiased fact checkers. However, we have yet to see the day when this is possible. Not only is there too much global turmoil to develop strong trust between citizens and journalists, the question of bias is constantly raised. We lack impartial journalists in many news organizations. I would love to use the power of journalism to live in an ungoverned land of the free and morally knowledgeable people. Maybe in another 200 years!

On the IMF Loan to Pakistan

According to a press release from the International Monetary Fund, a loan to repair the economic situation in Pakistan has been approved. The $6.64 billion loan, "is expected to help the economy rebound, forestall a balance of payments crisis and rebuild reserves, reduce the fiscal deficit, and undertake comprehensive structural reforms to boost investment and growth." The government of Pakistan will receive $544.5 million immediately and the rest will be dispersed over the course of three years. The conditions of the loan require the government to collect more taxes from the people, reduce energy subsidies, and reform government practices. The success of these efforts will be reviewed quarterly and determine future payments. The press release fails to mention the failed loan it made to Pakistan in 2008 in the amount of $11 billion.

A September 4th article from Al Jazeera describes the 2008 loan as suspended 2 years ago when the government failed to meet reform requirements. This new loan will cover the payments, in the amount of $5 billion, that is still owed to the IMF; in addition to covering a hefty trade deficit.

It was only this year that transparency.org reported on the views Pakistani citizens have about corruption. It was not good, 54% of respondents answered that corruption has “increased a lot.” One of the requirements of the loan is for tax loopholes and deductions to be closed; 55% of respondents have reported paying a bribe to tax revenue collectors in the last 12 months. The very civil servants and public officials one would expect to distribute the loan funds are thought to be corrupt or extremely corrupt by 81% of those polled.

 Many of us still have unanswered questions about the relationships Osama bin Laden fostered while comfortably evading capture in Pakistan.  The Pakistani judicial system even sentenced the doctor who helped the U.S. find bin Laden to 33 years in prison.

The U.S. donates billions of dollars to the IMF and Pakistan directly every year in an attempt to stabilize the economy and the tribal areas near Afghanistan. We have seen no meaningful advances.
 

Why would the outcome of this loan be any different? According to an August 2009 article on foriegnpolicy.com the U.S. had directly given Pakistan $22 billion between 2001-2009. And, “Of the $920 million in military support that the United States gave Pakistan in 2008 alone, only $300 million reached the Army.” While minsters and clerks have even more incentives to collect “perks” the soldiers who are the main defense against terrorism are ill-equipped and ill-trained. It is a wonder how long bin Laden lived undetected in Pakistan and even more wonderful that anyone believes that a loan to improve the economy (something the people really do need) will actually go to the right hands.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr13322.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/09/20139514647283238.html

http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/country/?country=pakistan

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/11/assisting_corruption

A Short Introduction

Hello everybody! I just want to start by saying how excited I am to be realizing the dream I only recently realized I have.

When I graduated from high school in 2005 I knew I wanted to work on a global scale but I had no idea what it was I wanted to do. So I joined the military, I figured they were pretty good at telling you what to do. I was taught Pashto, the language spoken in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. After leaving the Air Force I went to Afghanistan in 2009 and 2011 to use my language skills on a project that strives to improve voice recognition software. While in Afghanistan I started to use Pashto in a way I never could in the military, I conducted recorded interviews. Being able to speak to the everyday citizens of a country in the throes of war, poverty, and corruption taught me something about what the majority of news media either ignored, didn't know, or failed to report. I found that I had the desire to share with the rest of the world what I could learn by talking to people.

In a global society journalism is responsible for making us all complete citizens of the developing global community. We need to strive to convert the emotions of humanity into something that can be understood by all. If journalism is successful it will enable a new brand of broad reaching democracy independent of any one nation's constitution or decree. If journalism is unsuccessful there is no end to the ways humanity will be harmed by unchecked power on a global scale.

I am taking this class to begin my contribution to our global society. I hope to learn the essentials of fact checking and general procedures for journalists. There are many attributes of a good journalist and I want to learn how to adopt all of them.

I am also the mother of a 6 year old boy I am homeschooling and a beautiful 1 year old baby girl.

Thank you and good luck to all of you in our studies!