{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221193128/http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=365056", "Congressional NSA critics: review panel report gives 'momentum' for reform", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "WI", "F. Sensenbrenner", "S000244", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "The chief congressional critics of the US National Security Agency said Thursday that a White House review panel report gave them momentum to end bulk domestic surveillance, but expressed reservations about one of the panel\u2019s central proposals.\nIn an indication of the changing political landscape for the NSA, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the chief House sponsor of a bill preventing the agency from collecting US domestic phone data, said Thursday that \u201cPresident Obama\u2019s hand-picked panel\u201d highlighted \u201cthe need to enact the USA Freedom Act.\nBut Sensenbrenner, in an interview with the Guardian, was wary of its recommendation that phone companies or other private parties should store communications data for the NSA to search.\n\"The administration has not yet made the case that increased data retention is necessary, but I welcome any proposals that serve our national security interests without undermining constitutional rights\u201d Sensenbrenner said.\nThe report by the review group, released Wednesday afternoon, has been greeted warmly by skeptics of mass surveillance, particularly for its recommendations to add privacy advocates at the secret Fisa Court and for endorsing greater use of data encryption.\nBut as the review group\u2019s recommendations help reshape the debate over bulk surveillance, all sides are girding for a fight over the extent to which any entity ought to hold Americans\u2019 data \u2013 a fight likely to determine whether bulk domestic surveillance ends, or continues in a new form.\nIn line with the USA Freedom Act, the review group rejected a need for the government to hold citizens\u2019 data in bulk, and held out as a solution the ability of the government \u201cto obtain specific information relating to specific individuals or specific terrorist threats\u201d when it can demonstrate to the secret surveillance court \u201cthat it has reasonable grounds to access such information.\u201d\nBut the review group had less to say about a crucial detail: how long the telecoms ought to hold the NSA\u2019s desired call data. It urged the government and the companies to \u201cagree on a voluntary system\u201d and relegated to a footnote a suggestion that two years would be the maximum appropriate period of time to hold the data.\nCivil liberties groups who back the USA Freedom Act\u2019s flat prohibition on bulk domestic phone data collection flatly rejected having the phone companies or other \u201cprivate parties\u201d hold the data for NSA to query.\nAlexander Abdo of the ACLU said it would \u201csimply repackage the bulk collection under private control.\u201d Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was \u201cstill heinous, even if private company servers are holding the data instead of government data centers.\u201d Kevin Bankston of the Open Technology Institute said it would amount to \u201cbulk collection by proxy.\u201d\nFor its part, the NSA has been publicly hinting for months that as long as the surveillance agency maintains access to a comprehensive database of domestic phone call information going back three to five years, it can live with that database existing outside of the NSA\u2019s Fort Meade campus.\n\"I would love to give this hornet\u2019s nest to someone else, to say \u2018You get stung by this,\u2019\u201d General Keith Alexander, the outgoing director of the NSA, said in October. \u201cBut don\u2019t drop it, because that\u2019s our country, and if you do drop it, the chance that a terrorist attack gets through increases.\u201d\u00a0\nOn Capitol Hill, where fallout from the review group is unsettled as aides slogged through a lengthy report, pro-reform officials noted that the review group did not endorse the NSA\u2019s call for years.\nNow that both a federal judge, Richard Leon, and the review group have both doubted the necessity of bulk collection for stopping terrorist attacks, they argued that the NSA will have difficulty arguing that the companies ought to be required to store the data for as long as the agency wants, especially since the phone companies have not shown enthusiasm for the proposal.\nReform advocates, who have embraced the review group as a political success, were cautious about embracing the telecom-based proposal as a solution for bulk surveillance.\nSenator Patrick Leahy, Sensenbrenner\u2019s chief partner in the upper legislative chamber, said that he would hold a hearing in January with the review group to further assess its recommendations.\nSenator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee who said the report in general provided \u201csubstantial, meaningful reforms,\u201d indicated on Wednesday that he had concerns about having the companies hold the phone data for the NSA.\n\u201cObviously, there\u2019s going to be a lot of technical issues associated with telecoms having the information,\u201d Wyden told the Guardian in an interview. \u201cThat\u2019s going to take some time to work through.\u201d\nWhat the telecoms, NSA and privacy advocates agree on is that requiring the phone companies to hold the data is a complicated process, technologically and otherwise.\nCurrently, the phone companies typically store customer data for 18 months. The NSA wants the information kept for at least three years and ideally five, ostensibly to detect domestic communications pattern to known terrorist groups. Legislation would be necessary to compel the companies to store the data longer \u2013 which is both expensive and raises concerns about keeping the data secure.\nThe telecoms \u201cwould fight tooth and nail\u201d against such a requirement, said a congressional aide, \u201cunless there\u2019s compensations.\u201d\nCompanies as well keep their data in different file formats, complicating the ability for comprehensive and rapid searches. So far, the telecos have not embraced the proposal.\n\u201cA practical concern is that when you start saying you have to keep all this data, you open it up for access to divorce cases and down the line, everyone\u2019s going to want a bite at the apple,\u201d said Ross Schulman, a lobbyist with the Computer and Communications Industry Association.\nAt the same time, a powerful opponent of the USA Freedom Act, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, worried on Thursday that the review group might weaken US intelligence efforts.\n\u201cThough I am still studying the details, I have serious concerns with some of the report\u2019s 46 recommendations,\u201d said Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, former FBI agent and staunch advocate of the NSA\u2019s bulk collection.\n\"Any intelligence collection reforms must be careful to preserve important national security capabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to enact meaningful reforms in the near future.\u201d\nSenator Dianne Feinstein, Rogers\u2019 counterpart in the Senate, has yet to respond to the review group\u2019s proposals. Feinstein, a California Democrat, is backing an alternative to the USA Freedom Act that would bolster the NSA\u2019s powers to store communications data. Its prospects are less clear in the Senate now that the White House\u2019s surveillance review panel rejected its major rationale.\nThe USA Freedom Act claims 132 co-sponsors in the House and Senate combined, a quarter of the Congress. Obama has yet to commit to either supporting or opposing it.\n\u201cThe report sent over by the White House reaffirms what many of my colleagues and I have been saying since June \u2013 the NSA has gone too far,\u201d Sensenbrenner said.\n\u201cAll three branches of government have now said it is time to stop indiscriminately vacuuming up the data of innocent Americans. The report also agrees that the NSA\u2019s bulk collection has come at a high cost to privacy without improving national security.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221193128/http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=365056"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5262160450220108, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}