DOCSLIB.ORG

ICOTR Transparency Tracker

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ICOTR Transparency Tracker Subject matter Date Document category (used in Posting description/title Link posted orig. year Subcategory charts) Section 702 Overview https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf 12/20/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 Fact Sheet: Guide to Posted Documents Regarding Use of National Security Authorities - Updated as of https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Updated- 12/12/2017 2017 FISA December 2017 Guide_to_Posted_Documents_December_2017_FINAL.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Updated-Guide-to-Section-702-Value-Examples--- Fact Sheet: Guide to Section 702 Value Examples - Updated 12/7/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 Dec-2017-FINAL.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/CLPT-USP-Dissemination-Paper---FINAL-clean- ODNI Report on Protecting U.S. Person Identities in Disseminations under FISA 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 11.17.17.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-1-NSA-CLPO-Dissemination-Report- Annex 1 - The National Security Agency’s (NSA) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA Disseminations 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 20171027.pdf Annex 2 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-2---FBI-Report-on-Protecting-USP- 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 Disseminations Information-in-FISA-Disseminations.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-3---CIA-Report-on-Protecting-USP- Annex 3 - The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA Disseminations 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 Information-in-FISA-Dissemination.pdf Annex 4 - The National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-4---NCTC-Report-on-Protecting-USP- 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 Disseminations Information-in-FISA-Disseminations.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/news-stories/2017/understanding-the-impact-of- An Illustration: Understanding the Impact of Section 702 on the Typical American 11/20/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 702.shtml https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/item/1814-intelligence-gov-re- Press Release: Intelligence.gov Re-launch Marks New Era for IC Transparency 11/17/2017 2017 General launch-marks-new-era-for-ic-transparency Fact Sheet: Guide to Section 702 Value Examples https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Guide-to-Section-702-Value-Examples.pdf 10/27/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Motion%20to%20Extend%20Time%20Limits Motion to Extend Time Limits dated May 5, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 %20(May%205,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Reauthorization%20Certif Government’s Reauthorization Certification and Related Documents dated Apr. 22, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 ication%20and%20Related%20Documents%20(April%2022,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Follow- Follow-Up Questions Regarding Section 702 Certifications dated Jun. 17, 2011 Up%20Questions%20Regarding%20Section%20702%20Certifications%20(June%2017,%20201 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 1).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Response%20to%20May Government’s Response to May 9, 2011 Briefing Order dated Jun. 1, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 %209,%202011%20Briefing%20Order%20(June%201,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Motion%20to%20Extend%20Time%20Limits Motion to Extend Time Limits dated Jul. 14, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 %20(July%2014,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Supplement%20to%20Jun Government’s Supplement to June 1 and June 28, 2011 Submissions dated Aug. 16, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 e%201%20and%20June%2028,%202011%20Submissions%20(August%2016,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Amendment%20to%20Se Government’s Amendment to Section 702 Certification and Amended Minimization Procedures dated Oct. 31, ction%20702%20Certification%20and%20Amended%20Minimization%20Procedures%20(Oct 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 2011 ober%2031,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Notice%20of%20Clarificat Government’s Notice of Clarifications dated Aug. 16, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 ions%20(August%2016,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Response%20to%20Octo Government’s Response to October 13, 2011 Briefing Order dated Nov. 22, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 ber%2013,%202011%20Briefing%20Order%20(November%2022,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government's%20Request%20for%20Issuan Government’s Request for Issuance of Notices dated Oct. 31, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 ce%20of%20Notices%20(October%2031,%202011).pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/Government%20Notice%20(November%202 Government’s Notice dated Nov. 29, 2011 10/11/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 9,%202011).pdf EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 01 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%201.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 02 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%202.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 03 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%203.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 04 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%204.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 05 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%205.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 06 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%206.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 07 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%207.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 08 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%208.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 09 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%209.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20%20Doc%2010.pd EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 10 9.25.17 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V f EFF 16-CV-020141(HSG) – Doc 11 9.25.17 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/EFF%20FOIA%20Sep%2025%20Doc%2011.pdf 9/27/2017 FISA Title IV and Title V https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NSA%202012- NSA 2012-2013 Report of Annual Review 9/19/2017 2013 FISA FISA - Section 702 2013%20Report%20of%20Annual%20Review.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NSA%202013- NSA 2013-2014 Report of Annual Review 9/19/2017 2014 FISA FISA - Section 702 2014%20Report%20of%20Annual%20Review.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NSA%202014- NSA 2014-2015 Report of Annual Review 9/19/2017 2015 FISA FISA - Section 702 2015%20Report%20of%20Annual%20Review.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NSA%202015- NSA 2015-2016 Report of Annual Review 9/19/2017 2016 FISA FISA - Section 702 2016%20Report%20of%20Annual%20Review.pdf Fact Sheet: Guide to Posted Documents Regarding Use of National Security Authorities as of September 2017 https://www.dni.gov/files/CLPT/documents/Guide_to_Posted_Documents.pdf 9/19/2017 2017 FISA https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ,%2016%20CIV%207020_0 00050-53%20-- Govt Clarification of NSA Upstream Collection dated May 2, 2011 9/13/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 %20Govt%20Clarification%20of%20NSA%20Upstream%20Collection%20dated%20May%202, %202011.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ%2016%20CIV%207020_0 FISC Briefing Order dated May 2011 9/13/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 000540-58%20--%20FISC%20Briefing%20Order%20dated%20May%202011.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ,%2016%20CIV%207020_0 FISC Section 702 Order dated 2011 9/13/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 00059-79%20--%20FISC%20Section%20702%20Order%20dated%202011.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ,%2016%20CIV%207020_0 FISC Hearing Transcript dated Sep. 7, 2011 9/13/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 00080-163%20--%20FISC%20Hearing%20Transcript%20dated%20Sep%207%202011.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ,%2016%20CIV%207020_0 00164-169%20-- Govt Letter to FISC with Additional Information re 702 dated Sep. 9, 2011 9/13/2017 2011 FISA FISA - Section 702 %20Govt%20Letter%20to%20FISC%20with%20Additional%20Information%20re%20702%20d ated%20Sep%209%202011.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/NYT/NYT%20v%20DOJ,%2016%20CIV%207020_0 Govt Supplement Letter to FISC dated Sep.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Schrems II and Its Impact on the EU-US Privacy Shield
    EU Data Transfer Requirements and U.S. Intelligence Laws: Understanding Schrems II and Its Impact on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield March 17, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46724 SUMMARY R46724 EU Data Transfer Requirements and U.S. March 17, 2021 Intelligence Laws: Understanding Schrems II Chris D. Linebaugh and Its Impact on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Legislative Attorney On July 16, 2020, in a decision referred to as Schrems II, the Court of Justice of the European Edward C. Liu Union (CJEU) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield). Privacy Shield is a Legislative Attorney framework developed by the European Union (EU) and the United States to facilitate cross- border transfers of personal data for commercial purposes. Privacy Shield requires companies and organizations that participate in the program to abide by various data protection requirements and, in return, assures the participants that the transfer is compliant with EU law. The CJEU, however, found Privacy Shield inadequate in part because it does not restrain U.S. intelligence authorities’ data collection activities. According to the CJEU, U.S. law allows intelligence agencies to collect and use the personal data transferred under the Privacy Shield framework in a manner that is inconsistent with rights guaranteed under EU law. The CJEU focused on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Executive Order 12333, and Presidential Policy Directive 28, which govern how the U.S. government may conduct surveillance of non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States. The CJEU’s Schrems II ruling has significant implications for personal data transfers between the EU and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Through a PRISM, Darkly(PDF)
    NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Through a PRISM, Darkly Mark Rumold Staff Attorney, EFF NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Electronic Frontier Foundation NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 What we’ll cover today: • Background; what we know; what the problems are; and what we’re doing • Codenames. From Stellar Wind to the President’s Surveillance Program, PRISM to Boundless Informant • Spying Law. A healthy dose of acronyms and numbers. ECPA, FISA and FAA; 215 and 702. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 the background NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 changes technologytimelaws …yet much has stayed the same NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Way) Background • Established in 1952 • Twin mission: – “Information Assurance” – “Signals Intelligence” • Secrecy: – “No Such Agency” & “Never Say Anything” NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Mid) Background • 1960s and 70s • Cold War and Vietnam • COINTELPRO and Watergate NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The Church Committee “[The NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.” Senator Frank Church, 1975 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Reform • Permanent Congressional oversight committees (SSCI and HPSCI) • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – Established requirements for conducting domestic electronic surveillance of US persons – Still given free reign for international communications conducted outside U.S. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Changing Technology • 1980s - 2000s: build-out of domestic surveillance infrastructure • NSA shifted surveillance focus from satellites to fiber optic cables • BUT: FISA gives greater protection for communications on the wire + surveillance conducted inside the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter on CIA MDR Regs- Final.Pdf
    To: Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, John Fitzpatrick February 23, 2012 Re: CIA Regulation change to 32 CFR Part 1908 allowing the Agency to charge requesters as high as $72 per hour for Mandatory Declassification Review requests. To whom it may concern: We the undersigned would like to call to your attention an alarming regulation that the Central Intelligence Agency entered into the Federal Register on 23 September 2011. Finalized without any notice for public comment, this regulation could cut off access to the most effective tool the public can use to request declassification of the CIA’s secret documents, the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) program. The regulation states that declassification reviews will now cost requesters up to $72 per hour, even if no information is found or released. The public must now also agree to pay a minimum of $15 in duplication fees. Throughout the government, and previously at CIA, MDR fees are commensurate to FOIA fees. Under FOIA, Congress stipulated that public interest, educational, journalism, and other fee waivers must be granted, when applicable under the statute. Furthermore, agencies must forfeit their right to collect some FOIA processing fees when they miss their processing deadline. The effect of the CIA’s new policy will be to price the public out of submitting MDR requests, a result not at all consonant with Obama Administration transparency policy in general or its declassification policy under Executive Order 13,526 in particular. The MDR process is a popular and successful tool for researchers, historians, public interest advocates and others, in part because of the independent accountability and oversight the program provides.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff's Exhibit 17
    Case 1:15-cv-00662-TSE Document 168-21 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 4 Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA No. 15-cv-0062-TSE (D. Md.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17 12/17/2018 IC ON THE RECORD • DNI Declassifies Intelligence Community Documents... Case 1:15-cv-00662-TSE Document 168-21 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 4 IC ON THE RECORD Section 702 Overview CY2017 Transparency Report CY2016 SIGNALS INTEL REFORM REPORT IC TRANSPARENCY PLAN DNI Declassifies Intelligence Community Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Wednesday, August 21, 2013 In June, President Obama requested that Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper declassify and make public as much information as possible about certain sensitive NSA programs while being mindful of the need to protect sensitive classified intelligence and national security. Consistent with this directive and in the interest of increased transparency, DNI Clapper has today authorized the declassification and public release of a number of documents pertaining to the Intelligence Community’s collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). DNI Clapper has determined that the release of these documents is in the public interest. These documents and other unclassified information related to foreign intelligence surveillance activities are available on a new Intelligence Community website established at the direction of the President. The new www.icontherecord.tumblr.com is designed to provide immediate, ongoing and direct access to factual information related to the lawful foreign surveillance activities carried out by the U.S. Intelligence Community. The Administration is undertaking a careful and thorough review of whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified, consistent with the protection of national security.
    [Show full text]
  • Membership Lists, Metadata, and Freedom of Association's Specificity Requirement
    Membership Lists, Metadata, and Freedom of Association's Specificity Requirement KATHERINE J. STRANDBURG* Over the past year, documents revealed by leaker Edward Snowden and declassified by the government have provided a detailed look at some aspects of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) surveillance of electronic communications and transactions. Attention has focused on the NSA's mass collection from major telecommunications carriers of so-called "telephony metadata," which includes dialing and dialed numbers, call time, duration, and the like.' The goal of comprehensive metadata collection is what I have elsewhere called "relational surveillance"2-to follow "chains of communications" between "telephone numbers associated with known or suspected terrorists and other telephone numbers" and then to "analyze those connections in a way that can help identify terrorist * Alfred B. Engelberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Professor Strandburg acknowledges the generous support of the Filomen D'Agostino and Max E. Greenberg Research Fund. 1 The term "metadata" has been widely adopted in discussing the NSA's data collection activities and so I will use it here. When one moves beyond call traffic data, however, the term's meaning in the data surveillance context is problematic, ill-defined and may obscure the need for careful analysis. As one illustration of these issues, consider NSA documents recently made public in connection with news reports of NSA monitoring of text messages, which refer, in language that would have made the Red Queen proud, to "content derived metadata." See James Ball, NSA DishfirePresentation on Text Message Collection-Key Extracts, THE GUARDIAN, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Practice, Remedies, and Oversight
    ___________________________ SUMMARY OF U.S. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE LAW, PRACTICE, REMEDIES, AND OVERSIGHT ASHLEY GORSKI AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION AUGUST 30, 2018 _________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT ............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. U.S. Surveillance Law and Practice ................................................................................... 2 A. Legal Framework ......................................................................................................... 3 1. Presidential Power to Conduct Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ....................... 3 2. The Expansion of U.S. Government Surveillance .................................................. 4 B. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ..................................................... 5 1. Traditional FISA: Individual Orders ..................................................................... 6 2. Bulk Searches Under Traditional FISA ................................................................. 7 C. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ........................................... 8 D. How The U.S. Government Uses Section 702 in Practice ......................................... 12 1. Data Collection: PRISM and Upstream Surveillance ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Community Presidentially Appointed Senate Confirmed Officials (PAS) During the Administrations of Presidents George W
    Intelligence Community Presidentially Appointed Senate Confirmed Officials (PAS) During the Administrations of Presidents George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, and Donald J. Trump: In Brief May 24, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46798 Intelligence Community Presidentially Appointed Senate Confirmed Officials (PAS) Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 2 Tables Table 1. George W. Bush Administration-era Nominees for IC PAS Positions............................... 2 Table 2. Obama Administration-era Nominees for IC PAS Positions ............................................. 5 Table 3. Trump Administration Nominees for IC PAS Positions .................................................... 7 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 10 Congressional Research Service Intelligence Community Presidentially Appointed Senate Confirmed Officials (PAS) Introduction This report provides three tables that list the names of those who have served in presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) positions in the Intelligence Community (IC) during the last twenty years. It provides a comparative perspective of both those holding IC PAS positions who have
    [Show full text]
  • April 11, 2014 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 2100 K St
    April 11, 2014 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 2100 K St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20427 Re: March 19, 2014 Public Hearing Dear Chairman Medine and Board Members: The Constitution Project (TCP) welcomes this opportunity to comment on the March 19, 2014 public hearing and to offer our views on whether the federal government’s surveillance programs operated under the authority of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, properly balance efforts to protect the Nation with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. TCP is a non-profit think tank and advocacy organization that brings together unlikely allies—experts and practitioners from across the political spectrum—to develop consensus-based solutions to some of the most difficult constitutional challenges of our time. TCP’s bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee, comprised of former elected officials, former members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, as well as legal academics, practitioners and advocates, previously made recommendations for statutory amendments to add warrant requirements and increase judicial and congressional oversight of Section 702 programs. See TCP’s September 2012 Report on the FISA Amendments Act. Liberty and Security Committee members convened following the PCLOB’s March 19, 2014 hearing, discussed the witness testimony and other newly available information, and agreed to reaffirm their previous policy on Section 702, with the following additional comments and recommendations.1 I. The Operation of Section 702 Our comments are supported by information about the operation of Section 702 recently revealed through declassified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions and leaks by National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden.
    [Show full text]
  • S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE May 23, 2015 RE: S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate: Section 215 of the Patriot Act expanded the reach of the intelligence agencies in unprecedented ways and is the basis for collecting and retaining records on AMERICAN CIVIL millions of innocent Americans. The ACLU opposed Section 215 when it LIBERTIES UNION WASHINGTON was introduced, has fought it at each successive reauthorization, and urges LEGISLATIVE OFFICE Congress to let it sunset on June 1st. 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 TH FL WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 F/202.546.0738 This week, the Senate is scheduled to vote on S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act WWW.ACLU.ORG of 2015, which proposes modest reforms to Section 215, Section 214 (the pen MICHAEL W. MACLEOD-BALL register and trap and trace device provision, “PR/TT”), and national security ACTING DIRECTOR letter authorities. The bill also seeks to increase transparency over government NATIONAL OFFICE surveillance activities but could be construed to codify a new surveillance 125 BROAD STREET, 18 TH FL. regime of more limited, yet still massive scope. NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 Earlier this month, the Second Circuit unequivocally ruled that the OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 1 SUSAN N. HERMAN government’s bulk metadata program violated the law. In light of this PRESIDENT decision, it is clear that more robust surveillance reform is needed. Though an ANTHONY D. ROMERO improvement over the status quo in some respects, the USA Freedom Act EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR does not go far enough to rein in NSA abuses and contains several concerning ROBERT REMAR provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Intelligence Community (IC) – General Information
    Guide to Posted Documents Regarding Use of National Security Authorities – Updated as of January, 2020 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Intelligence Community (IC) – General Information .............................................................................. 1 IC Framework for Protecting Civil Liberties and Privacy and Enhancing Transparency ................................ 3 Reports on Use of National Security Authorities. ......................................................................................... 5 Section 702: - Overviews............................................................................................................................... 6 Section 702: Targeting and Minimization ..................................................................................................... 7 Section 702: Compliance, Oversight, and Other Documents ....................................................................... 8 FISA: Other Provisions ................................................................................................................................... 9 FISA: FISC and FISCR Opinions..................................................................................................................... 10 Executive Order 12333 ................................................................................................................................ 11 Presidential
    [Show full text]
  • Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies From
    To: Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies From: Bill of Rights Defense Committee Date: October 4, 2013 Re: Public comment pursuant to September 4 announcement On September 4, 2013, the Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies (the “Review Group”) announced an invitation for public comment pursuant to the President’s establishment of the group on August 12.1 This memorandum is presented for submission “as part of the official record of the Review Group’s activity.” 1. Introduction The United States has long pursued data collection as part of its national security program. Recent revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has turned its substantial powers towards spying on American citizens—en masse, without suspicion— have raised serious and troubling constitutional questions.2 The first public details regarding the scope of the NSA’s domestic spying program came to light despite active efforts across the executive branch to suppress them.3 In the wake of leaks by NSA subcontractor Edward Snowden, Americans—including members of Congress—have voiced widespread outrage about how the NSA’s activities render them presumptive suspects, without transparent debate.4 The disclosures finally enabled a long 1 See Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment, (Sep. 4, 2013), available at http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60323228143/review-group-on-global-signals-intelligence; The White House, Presidential Memorandum -- Reviewing Our Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies (Aug. 12, 2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2013/08/12/presidential-memorandum-reviewing-our-global-signals-intelligence-collec.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Bios
    Intelligence Reform and Counterterrorism after a Decade: Are We Smarter and Safer? October 16 – 18, 2014 University of Texas at Austin THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16 Blanton Museum, UT Campus 4:00-5:00pm Welcome Remarks and Discussion: Admiral William McRaven (ret.) Admiral McRaven is the ninth commander of United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. USSOCOM ensures the readiness of joint special operations forces and, as directed, conducts operations worldwide. McRaven served from June 2008 to June 2011 as the 11th commander of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) headquartered at Fort Bragg, N.C. JSOC is charged to study special operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop joint special operations tactics. He served from June 2006 to March 2008 as commander, Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR). In addition to his duties as commander, SOCEUR, he was designated as the first director of the NATO Special Operations Forces Coordination Centre where he was charged with enhancing the capabilities and interoperability of all NATO Special Operations Forces. McRaven has commanded at every level within the special operations community, including assignments as deputy commanding general for Operations at JSOC; commodore of Naval Special Warfare Group One; commander of SEAL Team Three; task group commander in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility; task unit commander during Desert Storm and Desert Shield; squadron commander at Naval Special Warfare Development Group; and SEAL platoon commander at Underwater Demolition Team 21/SEAL Team Four. His diverse staff and interagency experience includes assignments as the director for Strategic Planning in the Office of Combating Terrorism on the National Security Council Staff; assessment director at USSOCOM, on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, and the chief of staff at Naval Special Warfare Group One.
    [Show full text]