Oops... 'Why Aren’t There Any Technologists On The NSA Review Panel?' - WaPo

[WillyT]

Why aren’t there any technologists on the NSA review panel?
By Andrea Peterson - WaPo
Published: August 28 at 1:07 pm

<snip>

The White House released the official list of members for the panel to review government surveillance policies. It included the four former White House and intelligence community staffers previously reported by ABC—Michael Morell, Richard Clarke, Cass Sunstein and Peter Swire—and one additional academic, Geoffrey Stone.

Stone hired Obama for his job at the University of Chicago law school. After Ed Snowden’s leaks, he described Obama as a “rational civil libertarian,” and suggested that liberals who expected Obama to be a strong advocate of civil liberties were engaging in “wishful thinking.” ABC news describes him as a “longtime Obama supporter and self-described informal adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign.”

Stone previously criticized the president’s approach to government transparency in a New York Times editorial, but recently gave an interview to the Democracy Now! in which he defended the legality of NSA surveillance programs:

So far as I can tell from everything that’s been revealed [by Edward Snowden], absolutely nothing illegal or criminal about these programs. They may be terrible public policy—I’m not sure I approve of it at all—but the fact is the claim that they’re unconstitutional and illegal is wildly premature.

Some in the tech and privacy communities expressed dismay at the lack of tech expertise on the panel. Chris Soghoian, principal technologist and a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, for example, asked on Twitter, “Is it too much to ask that the NSA surveillance review panel include at least one person who knows how to actually run a packet sniffer?”

Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the senior staff technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology...

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/28/why-arent-there-any-technologists-on-the-nsa-review-panel/

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Our version of a "show trial".

Thanks Willy!

Cheers!

[Hydra]

2. Ironic, after we just had Manning's show trial

Dontcha think?

[GeorgeGist]

3. If criminals could pick their juries ...

the legal system would be a clusterfuck.

[longship]

4. I know some guys who I would choose.

But I would settle for Bruce Schneier and Lawrence Lessig.

[Downwinder]

8. How about a representative from EFF and one from EPIC?

[longship]

10. Well, both Schneier and Lessig are on the right side.

And Lessig is a lawyer who is a strong advocate on digital security matters. Schneier is the go-to guy on digital security.

I would be satisfied if either one or both of those guys were part of it. But, yes. EPIC or EFF people would be fine as well.

[Downwinder]

11. Lessig was a board member of EFF.

Berkman Center should be represented too.

I am not suggesting Carl Malamud though I would like to.

[longship]

12. And, as I said, Lessig is a lawyer.

We need somebody who knows and can argue law on our side.

Schneier, because he knows security better than almost anybody. He came up with the term security theater to describe things like taking off your shoes to go through airport security. It doesn't do squat to make us more secure. It's just for show -- to make everybody feel safer.

The NSA snooping is nothing but security theater, albeit with a particularly insidious downside. That's my opinion with little doubt that Bruce Schneier and Lawtence Lessig would agree with me.

Your suggestion is good, too.

I have no fucking idea how to bring such a thing to action other than to start beating the fucking drums.

[Downwinder]

13. If we can get people thinking and talking.

Another suggestion Karl Auerbach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Auerbach
http://www.cavebear.com

[longship]

14. Well, let's send them all off to DC!

The problem is to get Congress to listen. That's where we need some good leverage. That's why we need the top people who have the credentials to get the message across with some authority. No guarantee that Congress will listen, but it's got to set up so that they ignore them at some risk. And how the hell does one set that up?

Gees, this is so fucking complex. That's why I am not a staffer.

[Downwinder]

15. I think our choices have the legal and technical credentials.

It is not getting Congress to listen. It is the WH. Have to hold feet to the fire.

[silvershadow]

5. Because the panel is just for window dressing? nt

[jeff47]

6. Why would running a packet sniffer be relevant?

It's a legal review. Not a technology review. We know they have the technology, and we know they have the knowledge to use it. Don't really need someone who can run Wireshark to understand that.

[Fumesucker]

7. Rubber stamps haven't been high tech for quite some time now n/t

[jsr]

9. Because we have a shortage of math and science majors

The NSA hired them all.