Skip to main content

Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using Internet Archive TV News service.

Speakers

Ryan Devereaux
The Intercept Reporter
LINKTV 05/20/2014
Devereaux: This is one of the most important elements of this story for people to understand. Is the legal issue, the NSA operating in a pretty gray area here. The Bahamas has been working in the last several years to sort of establish statutes surrounding communication intercepts but it is all in the works. A lot of countries around the world have existing standards and statutes regarding interception of communications. That’s not to say that this is legal under Bahamian law. It does not seem to be. It seems to be illegal. But still, the Bahamas is a bit behind some other countries in terms of rigorous standards.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Ryan Devereaux
The Intercept Reporter
LINKTV 05/20/2014
Devereaux: With respect to U.S. law, under , Executive Order 12333 which the NSA and CIA uses to conduct surveillance abroad, there is a lot that US analysts and agents can do. This could very well, under executive order 12333, be legal for the NSA to be doing. The more important question about what this means for U.S. cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies and the DEA's operations abroad, this is central and key. Because the idea of lawful intercept, the very thing that allows the NSA access to these networks, is premised on the idea that you have a specific person that you are targeting who is under suspicion of criminal activity. A judge signs a warrant. This is judicially approved and you go after one person. You don’t have an entire country in the hopes of finding something interesting.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Peter Cook
Chief Washington Correspondent, Bloomberg
BLOOMBERG 05/22/2014
Chang: What about the technology companies? they are not too happy with this bill. Cook: They’re not too happy. They were initially supportive, as were a number of privacy groups. But at the end of the day, there were late changes requested by the intelligence community. They suggest there are loopholes here that will still allow for the bulk collection of internet users' data. And there’s a coalition of about nine companies, Google, Microsoft, Facebook all involved, who said they could not support this bill at the end of the day. They’re urging Congress to dig deeper into this to make changes. And their specific area, Emily, that they are worried about – and it’s the selector terms. The terms of surveillance community, intelligence community can use to look. The language used in the bill, such as term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address device, -- they say basically that language is too broad allows the government to search for too much. They worry again that they are going to pay the price from a business standpoint in terms of their reputation around the world. It concerns in other parts of the world not just in the United States. That they're still playing ball with the government too much.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Mike Honda
U.S. Representative (D-CA)
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Honda: I became an original co-sponsor of the U.S.A. Freedom Act because I was disturbed by the revelations about surveillance programs. The bill is a good step toward balancing security and privacy. But this amendment does not. It leaves opened the possibility that bulk surveillance could still continue and it no longer protects the public through the FISA court. I'm disappointed that this popular, bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened and I can no longer support it. I yield back.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Rush Holt
U.S. Representative (D-New Jersey)
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Holt: but it still falls woefully short. This legislation still allows the government to collect everything they want against Americans. To treat Americans as suspects first and citizens second. It still allows decisions about whom to target and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances of targets to be made by mid level employees, not federal judges. Most important, the fundamental decisions under this will be made by a -- against a weak and inferior standard that does not reach probable cause. So that the government can spy on people based on weak suspicions and not on legally established probable cause. Now, my friends say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The perfect, how could anyone here vote for legislation that doesn't uphold the constitutional standard of probable cause?
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Rush Holt
U.S. Representative (D-New Jersey)
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Holt: Probable cause has been well established in law for two centuries to keep Americans secure by keeping intelligence and enforcement officers focused on real threats. Not on vague suspicions or wild goose chases. A decade ago there was a major change in the relationship between Americans and their government. This bill does not correct it.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Sensenbrenner: Some of the changes raised justifiable concerns, and I don't blame people for losing trust in their government because the government has violated their trust. Let me be clear. I wish this bill did more. To my colleagues who lament the changes, I agree with you. The privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, I share your disappointment. The negotiations for this bill were intense. We have to make compromises, but this bill still does deserve support. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Today, we have the opportunity to make a powerful statement. Congress does not support bulk collection
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Sensenbrenner: The days of the N.S.A. indiscriminately vacuuming up more data than it can store will end with the U.S.A. Freedom Act. After the Freedom Act passes, we will have a law that expresses Congress' unambiguous intent to end bulk collection of Americans' data across all surveillance authorities. The bill requires that in addition to existing restrictions, the government must use a specific selection term as the basis for collecting foreign intelligence information. And maybe more importantly, after this bill becomes law, we will have critical transparency provisions to ensure that if the government again violates our trust, Congress and the public will know about it and will be able to do something about it.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Sensenbrenner: The Freedom Act gives private companies greater discretion that disclose their cooperation with the government. These disclosures gives the companies increased autonomy and will alert the public to the extent of data collection. The bill also requires public notification of any FISC decision that contains a significant construction of law. Expressly, including interpretations of, quote, specific selection term, unquote. This is the end of secret laws. If the administration abuses the intent of the bill, everyone will know. That's why the Freedom Act will succeed. It bans bulk collection and ensures disclosure of attempts to dilute it. Today's vote is the first step and not a final step in our efforts to reform surveillance.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Zoe Lofgren
U.S. Representative (D-CA)
CSPAN 05/22/2014
Lofgren: I must oppose The Freedom Act that’s on the floor today. This is not the bill that was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously. I voted for that bill, not because it was perfect but because it was a step in the right direction. After the bill was reported out, changes were made without the knowledge of the committee members, and i think the result is a bill that actually will not end bulk collections, regretfully. As Mr. Scott has said, our job is not to trust but to codify, and if you take a look at the selection changes made in the bill, it would allow for bulk collection should the N.S.A. do so.
More / Share / Borrow
Add to Popcorn
Showing 1121 through 1130 of 1708