Report: NSA Surveillance Panel's First Meeting Dodges Change

Ten days ago, the UK newspaper The Guardian reported on an Obama Administration panel's initial meeting to determine changes to NSA surveillance practices and data collection. The group included representatives from tech heavyweights (with the notable exception of Amazon), insiders from the fed's spy world, and think tank policy mavens. Some participants claimed the meeting was a borderline sham, in which no change was discussed and tech firms worked hard to advance their interests. Those "interests" did not necessarily coincide with those of the larger body of American citizens, who have discovered the military-technology complex has compromised their constitutional right to privacy.

Some details from the Guardian's story offer a disturbing look into what passes for transparency inside the Beltway. The meeting, one participant noted, was something less than a full, open dialogue. For one participant, the tech firms, who dominated the 90-minute meeting, seemed to be walking through a prepared script.

Representatives from the technology firms were identified around the table not by their names, but by placards listing their employers. There was minimal technical discussion of surveillance mechanisms despite the presence of technology companies; (the participant) took the representatives to be lawyers, not technologists.

When it appeared like the meeting would discuss a surveillance issue in a sophisticated way, participants and commissioners suggested it be done in a classified meeting. (The participant) interpreted that as a maneuver to exclude his more-critical viewpoint.

The privacy vs. surveillance issue is one of the few issues where American conservatives and liberals share a common concern. It is the conservatives' great shame that they allowed the Bush Administration to emasculate personal privacy guarantees; it is the liberals' great shame that they have played matador to the Obama Administration's bullish advocacy of the NSA's breathtaking data and communication sweeps.

It's a sad state of affairs when a British newspaper takes the lead and sheds light -- continued light -- on this American issue. No Fox News, no NPR, no major American media player really wants this story. That's a national shame.

The Movie "J.Edgar" Tackles American Political Taboos

J. Edgar Hoover (Photo from fbi.gov)

Whatever the merits of Clint Eastwood's new film J. Edgar, it does deserve attention for tackling American political taboos. His subject -- FBI director J. Edgar Hoover -- could intimidate the nation's toughest insiders. Nothing could be said about Hoover during his lifetime, except praise (often defined by the head Fed). Criticism was harshly dealt with.

Even after the FBI director passed away, few ventured into the dangerous waters of Hoover studies. The FBI had files on just about anyone who could get the public's attention. Clearly, those files included dossiers on Hollywood power brokers and high-profile actors. How that information could be used to induce silence or "cooperation" was something Hoover mastered. Even the Cold War Russians were impressed.

During the Bush-Cheney years, Americans discovered just how extensive our National Security State's "information gathering" has been. Its corrupt use gravely jeopardized all civil liberties. (To this day, the American political conservative movement, with its supposed "love" of the Constitution, has never looked itself in the mirror about its complicity with the Bush-Cheney administration's odious domestic eavesdropping and surveillance campaign and likely blackmail efforts.)

Eastwood is now old enough where a vengeful national security apparatus can't really hurt him. He's free to publicly depict J. Edgar Hoover's sexual dramas, his family life, his dishonest mythmaking, and his occasionally delusional final years. In essence, Eastwood's movie frees Hollywood from the shackles of the Hoover taboos. Whether producers now rush to make movies without the FBI's intimidating shadow modifying its scripts is not so important. In a way, J. Edgar minimizes the power of the "personal and confidential" files the FBI was fond to maintain. That is a significant achievement.

J. Edgar makes other points that won't make today's audiences so comfortable. Notably, Eastwood doesn't spare a 1930s public (and Hollywood) for embracing gangsters and thug psychology. While the point is an historical one, its echoes of our own contemporary society are pertinent. As we discovered during the Bush-Cheney years, liberty is something to be cherished and protected. That's a sentiment J. Edgar Hoover would have understood.

PS. A considerable number of former and current FBI personnel have objected to the movie's depiction of Hoover. A fair, objective article presenting this perspective appears in The Washington Post.