NSA review panel: Insiders or 'outside experts'?

The White House has reportedly picked the members of a panel that will review US intelligence and communications technologies. President Obama has asked the panel to issue a final report by year's end.

|
Charles Dharapak/AP
President Obama leaves after his news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington at his Aug. 9 press conference. Obama said that to 'move the debate forward' on National Security Agency surveillance capabilities, he would appoint a high-level group of outside experts to review US intelligence and communications technologies.

President Obama at his Aug. 9 press conference said that to “move the debate forward” on National Security Agency surveillance capabilities, he would appoint a high-level group of outside experts to review US intelligence and communications technologies.

This smart-person SWAT team will consider how to maintain the trust of the people in the intelligence programs, while making sure there is “absolutely” no abuse in terms of how those programs are used, Mr. Obama said.

“They will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year, so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy,” he said.

Sixty days is a tight time frame, so this panel needs to start work. According to ABC News, the White House has now picked its members. They are a group of veteran security experts and former White House officials, according to ABC.

The names mentioned are not really “outside” experts, according to some critics. They are people who have ties to many current programs and officials.

“Privacy advocates aren’t happy with the composition of the group revealed so far,” writes Andrea Peterson on The Washington Post’s “Switch” technology and policy blog.

According to ABC, members will include Michael Morell, a career intelligence officer who recently retired after serving as acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official in the Bush administration; Peter Swire, a former special assistant to Obama for economic policy; and Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar who until a year ago was the current administration’s regulatory czar.

Mr. Sunstein in particular is viewed with suspicion by some critics of NSA activities. In the past, he has advocated that the government “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites in the name of increasing confidence in government activities.

“Sunstein? Really?” writes NSA expert Marcy Wheeler in a critical post on her “emptywheel” blog.

The names published by ABC are not exactly diverse in terms of experience and generally have ties to the Obama administration, writes George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr on the legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

But it is likely that the administration needed people with preexisting security clearances to meet their challenging schedule. And “the group might be effective in the end, as they each bring a different skill set and perspective to the problem,” Mr. Kerr writes.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to NSA review panel: Insiders or 'outside experts'?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2013/0822/NSA-review-panel-Insiders-or-outside-experts
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe