Growing Chorus Agrees Mass Surveillance Just Doesn't Work

Since official Washington's return to work from the winter holidays, there has been a steady clip of developments on NSA reform. The New America Foundation (NAF) published a strong critique yesterday of the effectiveness of the NSA's surveillance program. Its conclusion echoes a similar one reached by the president's NSA Review Group - the agency's mass surveillance program simply does not work.

The Review Group was unable to find a single example of the NSA's phone metadata program providing crucial intelligence in a terrorism investigation. The New America Foundation Report uses even stronger language, concluding that the administration's claims about the role of warrantless NSA surveillance programs in keeping Americans safe are "overblown and even misleading." In line with other investigations, the report determined that, at best, the metadata tracking program helped prosecute one plot to send $8,500 to al-Shabab in Somalia – at the cost of every American's privacy and untold tax dollars.

The push for legislative reform is also gaining strength. Today, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate author of the USA FREEDOM Act, which would end the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, held a Judiciary Committee hearing on the president's Review Group report with all five of its members attending. The group pushed back on claims that the phone metadata program could have prevented 9/11, reiterated that the tracking program has not disrupted a terror attack, and made it clear that secrecy is anathema to democracy. On the House side, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has made it clear that robust oversight and reform legislation is necessary to "adequately protect American's civil liberties."

The NAF report also comes on the heels of last week's meetings at the White House with lawmakers, tech companies, and civil liberties advocates, including the ACLU, in preparation for President Obama's speech this Friday, during which he is expected to outline the reforms to the NSA programs he is willing to accept. While the White House has indicated an interest in some additional transparency measures to increase American confidence in government intelligence programs, we hope the president goes much further. He should follow his review group's recommendations, put an end to bulk surveillance, and begin the process of restoring the right to privacy.

Learn more about government surveillance and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (1)
Read the Terms of Use

Vicki B.

WORK? You mean Congress is included in this?
I'm shocked, I say, feeling no alarm whatsoever.

Last night I figured out why I'm so opposed to helping Edward Snowden. It came to me through a dream of an event that really occurred years ago, which is the first time I've ever dreamed of an event that really happened.

I remember how my dad was vehemently opposed to things like that; he once told my two older brothers that if they "dodged the draft in Vietnam or protested the war instead of fighting for their country" he would practically disown them. He was utterly disgusted at the idea of protesting something your government decides to do. If they'd gone to Canada, he told them, he'd do nothing to help them return.
He used to tell us he "wishes they'd bring back hanging for treason." That's what he believes should happen to Edward Snowden.
And you people thought *I* was bad. I don't think he should be hanged: I think he should have to LIVE with himself.

When the constitution was first written you would have been hung without much challenge to the idea if you did what Edward Snowden did. Making me wonder how it can be unconstitutional to make him spend a little time in jail for what he did but never mind.

Just like when those people told me "Jesus was against the Death Penalty" even though people were stoned to DEATH for adulterous behavior in the same exact time period that Jesus lived in, which is why I question all of this.

I was raised by old-school Republicans, but they DIDN'T hate abortion - especially if the alternative was that they have to be the ones to help raise the child - and they DIDN'T act like the bigots I see in the Party now.
But they definitely thought that no matter what flaws your government has that you should still be as loyal as possible to it.

Sign Up for Breaking News