White House assessing four alternative proposals on NSA data collection reform

By on February 26, 2014, 5:30 PM
fbi, nsa, obama, telecommunications, white house, proposals, reform

After reports that parts of President Obama's NSA crack-down were put in motion through a secret court ruling, a new report from The Wall Street Journal says that four proposals on how to reform the NSA's mass phone data dragnet operations have been presented to the White House from various outside intelligence agencies. The proposals come ahead of a late March deadline put forth when Obama initially announced plans for NSA reform.

The proposals are centered around who the collected data will be controlled by as well as when and how the NSA and other agencies can access it. The first proposal would see major US telecommunications companies take over the massive database. Under this proposal the NSA would be required to request data from the telecom companies, at which point it would be given only what it requires as opposed to being given free reigns over the data.

The second proposal would see a different government agency like the FBI take over the database, likely not something that's going to convince the public very much reform has taken place. The third option will see a third party that isn't a telecom company or a federal agency take over the phone records.

The fourth option presented could be the most unlikely. It would see the data collection program wiped out completely, something the Obama administration said would require more time and work back in January.

The WSJ reports that none of the four options appear to be garnering much support. While certain members of the intelligence community have seemingly backed the idea of allowing something like the FBI to take control, others have suggested the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would be a better fit. The phone companies have apparently been left in the dark regarding the option that involves them, WSJ reports that they have not even been directly informed of the proposal. While most seem to feel the third option appears as though it could be the best of the bunch, considering the unlikely hood of nixing the program completely, some have suggested it would come with very little change to the existing situation.




User Comments: 9

Got something to say? Post a comment
H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

They got a badass looking HQ, I gotta say :3

1 person liked this | Holotus said:

The amount of corruption within the government has long passed the point of no return. One of the biggest issues revolves around corporations buying their way into elected officials so that they can gain more power. It also works vice versa.

Centuries ago the United States separated Church from State, the same needs to happen for corporations & governments

Holotus said:

They got a badass looking HQ, I gotta say :3

You sound like a government shill.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

You sound like a government shill.

You exposed me oh noes

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Thank God they're not collecting data about people odors.

Unless of course, you're butt dialing and farting at the same time. Then it's your dumb own fault, if the NSA puts a brown stain on your record......:eek:

(And now, we could sure put a, "holding its nose" smiley, to good use).

1 person liked this | MilwaukeeMike said:

The amount of corruption within the government has long passed the point of no return. One of the biggest issues revolves around corporations buying their way into elected officials so that they can gain more power. It also works vice versa.

Centuries ago the United States separated Church from State, the same needs to happen for corporations & governments

Ignoring the fact that this story doesn't have anything to do with corporations....

We actually really need lobbyists. I know that's like saying we need lawyers, but thing about it for a second. The govt is really good at passing laws to accomplish one thing and end up doing the exact opposite. Kinda like how Obamacare was supposed to get people more insurance, but because of plan requirements more people have lost insurance than have signed up, and that's even after they fixed their website with no security.

Imagine if the govt was free to pass laws on banking and healthcare and transportation and all these other fields they have no idea about without experts telling them the effects of their ideas. It would be a giant mess.

Regardless... I have no faith that anything the govt passes is going to result in what they say will happen. Not after all the other giant lies out of that white house..'Benghazi wasn't a terrorist attack'...'There wasn't a single bit of corruption in the IRS targeting scandal' and of course 'If you like your plan you can keep it.'

It is far more important for the govt to make the appearance that they're trying to do something about it than to actually do something about it. They just want this to go away before the Nov election cycle.

2 people like this | Guest said:

Terrorism kills less than 300 people a year. Heart disease kills 700,000 people a year. Cancer kills 550,000 people a year. You're 57 times more likely to trip and fall to your death than to be killed by terrorism. We spend $500,000,000 for yearly for every death due to terrorism, and only $2,000 for every death due to a stroke. Do you really believe the government is trying to protect you?

1 person liked this | lmike6453 said:

Terrorism kills less than 300 people a year. Heart disease kills 700,000 people a year. Cancer kills 550,000 people a year. You're 57 times more likely to trip and fall to your death than to be killed by terrorism. We spend $500,000,000 for yearly for every death due to terrorism, and only $2,000 for every death due to a stroke. Do you really believe the government is trying to protect you?

Well said, priorities are obviously not in place

MilwaukeeMike said:

Terrorism kills less than 300 people a year. Heart disease kills 700,000 people a year. Cancer kills 550,000 people a year. You're 57 times more likely to trip and fall to your death than to be killed by terrorism. We spend $500,000,000 for yearly for every death due to terrorism, and only $2,000 for every death due to a stroke. Do you really believe the government is trying to protect you?

The problem though, is that terrorism breeds more terrorism, which would then breed more terrorism. There are a lot of people in this world who want to kill infidels, not matter how much we dislike our govt's strategies for 'protecting us' Do you realize that saying 'you're 57 times more likely to trip and fall to your death than die of terrorism' is actually a really GOOD thing? I could totally see that line being used as a defense for all the spending.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.