Politics

Privacy Advocates Seek More Openness on NSA Surveillance

Published

11 years ago

April 22, 2015

This June 6, 2013 file photo shows the sign outside the National Security Agency (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md. President Barack Obama is hosting a series of meetings this week with lawmakers, privacy advocates and intelligence officials as he nears a final decision on changes to the government's controversial surveillance programs. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

This June 6, 2013 file photo shows the sign outside the National Security Agency (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Congress considers whether to extend the life of a program that sweeps up American phone records, privacy advocates and civil liberties groups say too much about government surveillance remains secret for the public to fully evaluate the program’s reach or effectiveness.

The disclosure two years ago of the National Security Agency’s surveillance efforts prodded the federal government to declassify reams of once-secret documents, including opinions from a secretive intelligence court laying out the program’s origins and legal underpinnings. But critics say key language from the disclosed documents remains censored, the release of information has been selective, and the ongoing trickle of once-secret memos has raised concerns about how many other potentially illuminating documents might yet remain outside the public’s reach.

“That means the public lacks information it needs to understand the significance of the powers that government already has and the significance of the powers that the government is asking for,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The NSA program that collects and stores phone records is conducted under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. The extent of its reach remained secret until Edward Snowden, a former NSA systems administrator, disclosed details of the surveillance in 2013. Amid a public backlash, President Barack Obama has proposed that the NSA stop collecting the records in bulk and instead request them from phone companies as needed for terrorism investigations. Congress is now deciding whether to renew or modify the phone records collection when the law authorizing it expires in June. Legislation is expected to be unveiled Wednesday in the House.

Intelligence officials say the program — it collects the “to” and “from” information on phone calls but not their content — is critical to detecting terrorist plots and have sought to justify it through the ongoing declassification of materials, including from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Among documents released are court opinions outlining how the NSA was first authorized to start collecting bulk phone and Internet records in the hunt for al-Qaida terrorists, previously classified testimony from intelligence officials and NSA analyst training materials.

The disclosures far surpass available public information on other secret programs such as targeted drone strikes against terror suspects. But there are gaps in the information that privacy advocates say prevent the public from being able to fully judge the program’s effectiveness, including the extent to which Section 215 has been construed to allow for other types of bulk collection. Knowing how the government interprets its surveillance authorities, and how broadly they reach, is critical, advocates say.

“If the government is asking for the renewal of this authority, the public has a right to know at least in general terms how the authority is being used, and right now the public doesn’t have that,” Jaffer said.

Last month, a federal judge in New York held in a public records lawsuit that the government could lawfully withhold any secret ruling regarding the use of Section 215 to collect records other than bulk phone records. The judge, William Pauley, said the government had “offered a reasoned and persuasive argument for withholding” information that should not be second-guessed. In that same case, the Justice Department last year released a couple dozen surveillance court rulings but refused to turn over unspecified others, the exact number of which it said was classified.

The government continues to pull back the curtain with periodic new disclosures, such as the Justice Department’s release in January of a 5-year-old memo that said the Commerce Department was not obligated under Section 215 to turn over confidential census data to federal law enforcement. But such disclosures, though welcomed by civil liberties groups, also hint at how much might still be unknown.

The NSA program has also highlighted broader concerns about what privacy advocates say is the federal government’s overreliance on secretive court rulings and classified legal memos. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who opposes the bulk phone records collection, said while he believed the government had released enough information about the law — albeit under pressure — for an informed debate, he was nonetheless concerned about the role of secret legal interpretations.

Though intelligence agencies should be able to conduct secret operations, he said, “they shouldn’t be following secret law.”

Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor, said it was possible that the debate about the phone records program distracts attention from other surveillance efforts that are perhaps more secretive, such as Executive Order 12333, which authorizes foreign intelligence collection overseas without a court order. He also said he thought the government had provided substantial information about what information it was collecting, but was less forthcoming about how that information was used.

“The conversation about collection and a conversation about use are very different conversations,” he said. “And to have one without the other is to, I think, underappreciate the privacy consequences of each.”

Liza Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said it was impossible to know how much information might be out there absent a complete index of how many memos, opinions or court orders even exist.

“We shouldn’t be satisfied that we know everything” because, Goitein said, “we have no way to assess that we know everything.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Privacy Advocates Seek More Openness on NSA Surveillance

Don't Miss

Obama Attorney General Nominee Heads for Vote After 5 Months

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OP-ED: AB 1349 Puts Corporate Power Over Community

Since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010, ticket prices have jumped more than 150 percent. Activities that once fit a family’s budget now take significant disposable income that most working families simply don’t have. The problem is compounded by a system that has tilted access toward the wealthy and white-collar workers. If you have a fancy credit card, you get “presale access,” and if you work in an office instead of a warehouse, you might be able to wait in an online queue to buy a ticket. Access now means privilege.

Published

3 days ago

January 9, 2026

Oakland Post

Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

By Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

As a pastor, I believe in the power that a sense of community can have on improving people’s lives. Live events are one of the few places where people from different backgrounds and ages can share the same space and experience – where construction workers sit next to lawyers at a concert, and teenagers enjoy a basketball game with their grandparents. Yet, over the past decade, I’ve witnessed these experiences – the concerts, games, and cultural events where we gather – become increasingly unaffordable, and it is a shame.

These moments of connection matter as they form part of the fabric that holds communities together. But that fabric is fraying because of Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s unchecked control over access to live events. Unfortunately, AB 1349 would only further entrench their corporate power over our spaces.

Power over live events is concentrated in a single corporate entity, and this regime operates without transparency or accountability – much like a dictator. Ticketmaster controls 80 percent of first-sale tickets and nearly a third of resale tickets, but they still want more. More power, more control for Ticketmaster means higher prices and less access for consumers. It’s the agenda they are pushing nationally, with the help of former Trump political operatives, who are quietly trying to undo the antitrust lawsuit launched against Ticketmaster/Live Nation under President Biden’s DOJ.

That’s why I’m deeply concerned about AB 1349 in its current form. Rather than reining in Ticketmaster’s power, the bill risks strengthening it, aligning with Trump. AB 1349 gives Ticketmaster the ability to control a consumer’s ticket forever by granting Ticketmaster’s regime new powers in state law to prevent consumers from reselling or giving away their tickets. It also creates new pathways for Ticketmaster to discriminate and retaliate against consumers who choose to shop around for the best service and fees on resale platforms that aren’t yet controlled by Ticketmaster. These provisions are anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

California has an opportunity to stand with consumers, to demand transparency, and to restore genuine competition in this industry. But that requires legislation developed with input from the community and faith leaders, not proposals backed by the very company causing the harm.

Will our laws reflect fairness, inclusion, and accountability? Or will we let corporate interests tighten their grip on spaces that should belong to everyone? I, for one, support the former and encourage the California Legislature to reject AB 1349 outright or amend it to remove any provisions that expand Ticketmaster’s control. I also urge community members to contact their representatives and advocate for accessible, inclusive live events for all Californians. Let’s work together to ensure these gathering spaces remain open and welcoming to everyone, regardless of income or background.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

2025 in Review: Seven Questions for Assemblymember Lori Wilson — Advocate for Equity, the Environment, and More

Her rise has also included several historic firsts: she is the only Black woman ever appointed to lead the influential Assembly Transportation Committee, and the first freshman legislator elected Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. She has also been a vocal advocate for vulnerable communities, becoming the first California legislator to publicly discuss being the parent of a transgender child — an act of visibility that has helped advanced representation at a time when political tensions related to social issues and culture have intensified.

Published

2 weeks ago

December 29, 2025

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). File photo.

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) joined the California Legislature in 2022 after making history as Solano County’s first Black female mayor, bringing with her a track record of fiscal discipline, community investment, and inclusive leadership.

She represents the state’s 11th Assembly District, which spans Solano County and portions of Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties.

California Black Media spoke with Wilson about her successes and disappointments this year and her outlook for 2026.

What stands out as your most important achievement this year?

Getting SB 237 passed in the Assembly. I had the opportunity to co-lead a diverse workgroup of colleagues, spanning a wide range of ideological perspectives on environmental issues.

How did your leadership contribute to improving the lives of Black Californians this year?

The Black Caucus concentrated on the Road to Repair package and prioritized passing a crucial bill that remained incomplete during my time as chair, which establishes a process for identifying descendants of enslaved people for benefit eligibility.

What frustrated you the most this year?

The lack of progress made on getting Prop 4 funds allocated to socially disadvantaged farmers. This delay has real consequences. These farmers have been waiting for essential support that was promised. Watching the process stall, despite the clear need and clear intent of the voters, has been deeply frustrating and reinforces how much work remains to make our systems more responsive and equitable.

What inspired you the most this year?

The resilience of Californians persists despite the unprecedented attacks from the federal government. Watching people stay engaged, hopeful, and determined reminded me why this work matters and why we must continue to protect the rights of every community in our state.

What is one lesson you learned this year that will inform your decision-making next year?

As a legislator, I have the authority to demand answers to my questions — and accept nothing less. That clarity has strengthened my approach to oversight and accountability.

In one word, what is the biggest challenge Black Californians are facing currently?

Affordability and access to quality educational opportunities.

What is the goal you want to achieve most in 2026?

Advance my legislative agenda despite a complex budget environment. The needs across our communities are real, and even in a tight fiscal year, I’m committed to moving forward policies that strengthen safety, expand opportunity, and improve quality of life for the people I represent.