Obama not going to follow panel recommendations on NSA reform

Okay, it's not Friday yet, but SALON says Obama will only try to keep another Snowden-type affair from happening. In other words, better vetting of workers, no decrease in spying by the NSA. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/16/what_to_expect_from_obamas_nsa_reforms/

Quote :

I’ve noted before that even the boldest NSA reforms suggested to President Obama would not have curtailed our state of total surveillance. The reforms Obama will actually announce on Friday are weaker even still.

Central to Obama’s reform package is not the reining in of mass surveillance, but rather the defense of the NSA against whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden. “The Obama administration plans to overhaul the nation’s security clearance system to prevent future intelligence leaks like the one by former defense contractor Edward Snowden,” The Hill reported.

The NSA will still be able to keep bulk databases — contrary to the advice of the White House NSA review group. A number of privacy advocates had hoped to place communications data stockpiles in the hands of telecomm firms or a private third party and out of the hands of the NSA. The fact that this suggestion was among the boldest made by the White House review group highlighted the upper limits of surveillance reform: The best case scenario we were looking at still ensured that our every telephonic and online communication be hoarded and maintained in surveillable form — if not by the spy agency itself, then by a large corporate entity. The Obama administration had no intention of dismantling the surveillance state; even sweeping reform would have simply meant the privatization of certain data collections.

But even that, according to reports, is not on the table for Friday’s presidential announcement. Instead, Obama is expected to announce more stringent and regular security clearances, with the addition of a new clearance level around sensitive materials. As Kevin Gosztola noted, “It is all about perception.” The Obama administration is less interested in upholding constitutional privacy protections than it is in restoring faith in its intelligence agencies (not to mention the business interests of the U.S. tech sector, injured worldwide by the NSA revelations.)

I don't see a solution, the NSA has been listening ever since they bought their first sigint system. The idea of a 3rd party holding information makes no sense - that's just someone else who could potentially use the information for some nefarious reason - or have it stolen...The larger problem is obvious - elected governments come and go but the civil servant government is long term and generally out of sight so they grow into sort of a pseudo-government over time making their own policy and executing same as they think best. Makes one wonder what else is going on behind all those cipher locks and secret handshakes.

The reasoning for having a 3rd party keeping the data, as I see it anyway, it to prevent abuses.

A 3rd party can keep all the data and release it upon a bona fide court order to another governmental agency... FBI, NSA or whatever. Access to the data could be kept offline (not on the internet), so it is possible to keep the data secure from hackers.

This way, if a POTUS or another high-ranking official has a political enemy he wants to bring down, it wouldn't be in the hands of an agency under his control. The data would be there in case it is needed, but the administration wouldn't have their nefarious hands on it. Murphy's Law, y'know.