Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Report on PRISM publishes reveals split World Privacy Forum Skip to Content Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display Home Connect With Us: twitter Vimeo email Main Navigation Hot Topics
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 Next »Supreme Court Ruling on Cell Phone Privacy: Encouraging for Privacy « PreviousConsumer Alert: Be aware of unauthorized in-app charges WPF updates and news CALENDAR EVENTS WHO Constituency Meeting WPF co-chair
6 October 2022, Virtual OECD Roundtable WPF expert member and participant Cross-Border Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy
4 October 2022, Paris, France and virtual OECD Committee on Digital and Economic Policy fall meeting WPF participant
27-28 September 2022, Paris, France and virtual more Recent TweetsWorld Privacy Forum@privacyforum·7 OctExecutive Order On Enhancing Safeguards For United States Signals Intelligence Activities The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/10/07/executive-order-on-enhancing-safeguards-for-united-states-signals-intelligence-activities/Reply on Twitter 1578431679592427526Retweet on Twitter 1578431679592427526Like on Twitter 1578431679592427526TOP REPORTS 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. COVID-19 and HIPAA: HHS’s Troubled Approach to Waiving Privacy and Security Rules for the Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic strained the U.S. health ecosystem in numerous ways, including putting pressure on the HIPAA privacy and security rules. The Department of Health and Human Services adjusted the privacy and security rules for the pandemic through the use of statutory and administrative HIPAA waivers. While some of the adjustments are appropriate for the emergency circumstances, there are also some meaningful and potentially unwelcome privacy and security consequences. At an appropriate time, the use of HIPAA waivers as a response to health care emergencies needs a thorough review. This report sets out the facts, identifies the issues, and proposes a roadmap for change.