Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Report on PRISM publishes; reveals split

An important report came out today from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the board that was appointed to be a privacy watchdog for the US government surveillance programs. The newly released report covers PRISM and other Section 702 surveillance programs conducted under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The report is complex, and provides important benchmarking on how PRISM and “upstream” surveillance programs work. In this aspect, the report is worth reading and understanding. In describing PRISM, for example, the report explains the process:

“In PRISM collection, the government sends a selector, such as an email address, to a United States-based electronic communications service provider, such as an Internet service provider (“ISP”), and the provider is compelled to give the communications sent to or from that selector to the government. PRISM collection does not include the acquisition of telephone calls. The National Security Agency (“NSA”) receives all data collected through PRISM. In addition, the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) each receive a select portion of PRISM collection.”

The report also has a useful and illuminating description of upstream collection, which is well worth the time to read. (Page 7 of the report).

The report’s recommendations, however, are what have proven to be more controversial. While recognizing the need for some changes in how US surveillance under Section 702 is conducted, ultimately the board did not recommend fundamental reform of the system, as many, including in Congress, have urged. The independent board’s members split on the issue, as can be seen in the details of the report. The lack of a strong resulting set of recommendations for reform has caused the civil liberties and privacy community to characterize the report as weak at best. WPF appreciates the technical explanations of the programs, but we had certainly hoped for more. The report is nevertheless important to read and digest for any who are interested in these issues, in particular for its descriptions of the Section 702 programs like PRISM.

Below is a link to the report, analysis, and background reporting. There are many different views of this report as might be expected with a lengthy, controversial, and complex report. We are not endorsing any views other than our own by providing these links.

Documents and more information:

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board July 2 report
EFF blog post Flawed Oversight Board Report Endorses General Warrants
ACLU press release Government Privacy Watchdog Signs off on Much of NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Program
Politico Panel Divides on Surveillance Reforms
Wired Oversight Board Finds Little Wrong With NSA Surveillance Program
The Guardian Some NSA Data Collection is “Legal and Effective” Says Independent Board
ComputerWorld US Privacy Board Finds No Illegal Activity in Overseas Surveillance Program
The Hill Policy Board Backs Government Spying

Posted July 2, 2014 in Digital Privacy, Government privacy, International Privacy, Internet Privacy

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Report on PRISM publishes; reveals split

Documents and more information:

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board July 2 report

EFF blog post Flawed Oversight Board Report Endorses General Warrants

ACLU press release Government Privacy Watchdog Signs off on Much of NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Program

Politico Panel Divides on Surveillance Reforms

Wired Oversight Board Finds Little Wrong With NSA Surveillance Program

The Guardian Some NSA Data Collection is “Legal and Effective” Says Independent Board

ComputerWorld US Privacy Board Finds No Illegal Activity in Overseas Surveillance Program

The Hill Policy Board Backs Government Spying