The United States Congress should restrict the National Security Agency’s ability to collect “bulk data” without a warrant

Neg

Squo Solves

1NC Card

The squo solves all your advantages- the Freedom Act is a major shift in surveillance and solves symbol advantages

CDT 6/7 [Columbia Daily Tribune, June 7, 2015, With USA Freedom Act, America finally moves beyond 9/11, http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/oped/with-usa-freedom-act-america-finally-moves-beyond/article_b6113c88-ae7c-53ab-8942-7d6f206c295d.html]

In the end, Congress did the right thing. The USA Freedom Act, which ends the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of American phone records, passed the Senate convincingly Tuesday, ending a long and labored fight.

This is no small achievement. Practically, it ends an unpopular, legally dubious and empirically ineffective domestic espionage program. Politically, it signals that Congress can still make progress on serious matters when it tries. And symbolically, it suggests that, 14 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States might finally be getting back to normal.

Perhaps the most potent expression of that symbolism came from the bill’s opponents. In successive attempts to block, delay and dilute this legislation, they employed some familiar oratorical excesses: Sen. Mitch McConnell called the bill “a resounding victory for those currently plotting attacks against the homeland.” Yet the opponents failed completely.

This indicates, perhaps, a deeper cultural shift. If Americans no longer respond to this kind of alarming rhetoric as they once did — if they’re no longer quite so comfortable ceding liberties for the false promise of total security — that is both psychic and civic progress. Democracy requires a sturdy spine no less than a level head.

As it happens, McConnell’s fears are baseless. The law still allows the NSA to collect phone records, as long as it has a court order. It renews other counterterrorism tools that were jeopardized by this fight. And it preserves the NSA’s most important surveillance programs while ensuring that the government can no longer continuously spy on its own citizens. It was a compromise, supported by everyone from the intelligence community to Human Rights Watch.

It isn’t perfect, of course. Some of its language might be prone to misinterpretation, accidental or otherwise. It doesn’t address other aspects of the NSA’s global spying operation that require more scrutiny. And some of its transparency requirements might prove ineffective.

Yet the new law is of a piece with the long and cyclical history of American espionage, the limits on which change with the tenor of the times. After World War I, the NSA’s predecessor organization was found to be overzealously spying on the communications of U.S. allies. Secretary of State Henry Stimson cut off its funding, memorably saying that “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” When the NSA and its fellow travelers acquired expansive new powers during the Cold War, overreach followed once again, this time in the form of domestic spying, assassination attempts abroad and much more. The resulting Church Committee investigations led to a systematic overhaul of their oversight.

In rolling back some of the extensive powers granted to intelligence agencies after Sept. 11, the USA Freedom Act suggests that this long civic quest to balance liberty and safety remains vigorous. It shows that fearfulness isn’t a permanent condition of American politics. And it affirms the value of transparency and liberty, even in a dangerous age.

Solves- Civil Liberties

Freedom Act solves- reverses anti-freedom trend

CM 6/7 [Concord Monitor, June 7, 2015 , Editorial: Freedom Act returns a bit of liberty, http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/17165482-95/editorial-freedom-act-returns-a-bit-of-liberty]

Sixteen years before the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired at Lexington and Concord, Benjamin Franklin told people who would become his countrymen that “those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In the wake of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress, with the support of the great majority of Americans, rushed to enact the Patriot Act, a law that curbs liberty in the name of security.

The law, as many now realize, went too far, and those charged with enforcing it, the National Security Agency and the FBI, as always happens, interpreted the law to take it far further than its authors intended. Under it, according the American Civil Liberties Union, authorities can search your home without telling you, monitor emails and internet use, demand records from credit card, internet and telephone companies, and take property without a hearing.

Last week, Americans reclaimed a little bit of their lost liberty when President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act, a reform that begins to curb some of the worst elements of the Patriot Act. The new act curtails the government’s practice, revealed by former government security employee Edward Snowden, of amassing bulk records of citizens’ phone calls, call locations, numbers and length of the call but not content. The bill also begins to chip away at the terrifying wall of secrecy surrounding the actions of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which can authorize without probable cause the collection of citizen information that includes medical records, books read, goods purchased, websites searched and bank records. Citizens who learn that they are under investigation cannot, under the act, reveal that fact and thereby defend themselves.

In a sign that Americans may be coming out of shock and heeding Franklin’s warning, the reform bill had overwhelming support in Congress. It passed the House, 338-88, and the Senate, 67-32.

Solves- International

Obama’s plan solves international concerns

Fitzpatrick 14 (Jack,- staff correspondent at National Journal Quoting European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy “Obama Hints at European Fracking Following Russia Sanctions”)

Obama also declined to address worries in Europe over U.S. spying programs. Barroso said he and Van Rompuy have "concerns, shared widely by citizens in E.U. member states," about U.S. surveillance, but that they had discussed the issue with Obama earlier in the day and are confident about Obama's proposals for NSA reforms—including ending the agency's mass collection of phone data.

Unilateral action solves the alt causes but legislation is still key

Reuters 14 (“US needs to win back European trust after NSA spying revelations: Obama”)

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that U.S. intelligence agencies were not snooping on ordinary citizens but admitted it would take time to win back the trust of European governments and people after revelations of extensive U.S. surveillance.

Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden disclosures about the sweep of the National Security Agency's monitoring activities triggered a national debate over privacy rights but also damaged relations with some European governments. Obama said one of the aims of his trip to Europe this week was to reassure allies that he was acting to meet their concerns by limiting the scope of data-gathering. "I am confident that everybody in our intelligence agencies operates in the best of intentions and is not snooping into the privacy of ordinary Dutch, German, French or American citizens," Obama told reporters after a nuclear security summit in The Hague. However, Obama said he recognised that "because of these revelations, there is a process that is taking place where we have to win back the trust, not just of governments, but more importantly of ordinary citizens, and that is not going to happen overnight." (Also see: Obama to propose curbing of bulk collection of phone records by NSA: Report) As Obama began his trip to Europe on Monday, a senior administration official said Obama planned to ask Congress to end the bulk collection and storage of phone records by the NSA but allow the government to access the "metadata", which lists millions of phone calls made in the United States, when needed. Obama said he was confident that the change "allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a terrorist attack, but does so in a way that addresses some of the concerns that people have raised". "I am looking forward to working with Congress to make sure that we go ahead and pass the enabling legislation quickly so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement," he said. Checks and balances He said this was "an example of us slowly, systematically putting in more checks, balances, legal processes. The good news is that I am very confident that it can be achieved." Allegations in Britain's Guardian newspaper that the United States had monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel caused outrage in Europe last year. Germany summoned the U.S. ambassador for the first time in living memory. (Also see: Merkel-tapping allegations prompt Germany to send intelligence chiefs to US) In response, Obama in January banned U.S. eavesdropping on the leaders of close friends and allies, and began reining in the vast archive of Americans' phone data, seeking to reassure Americans and foreigners alike that the United States would take more account of privacy concerns. He said on Tuesday that, although some coverage of the Snowden revelations had been sensationalised, fears over privacy "in this age of the Internet and 'big data'" were justified. He also voiced faith in strong U.S. ties with Europe, saying the issue could be an "irritant" but did not define the relationship. He said intelligence played a critical role in U.S. cooperation with other countries in countering terrorism, nuclear proliferation or human trafficking. As technology had evolved, however, "the guidelines and structures that constrain how our intelligence agencies operated have not kept pace with these events and this technology", he said. "There is a danger because of these new technologies that at some point it could be abused, and that is why I initiated a broad-based review." He said U.S. intelligence teams were consulting closely with counterparts in other nations to ensure there was greater transparency about U.S. activities. In an interview with the U.S. Fox network that aired on Tuesday, NSA Director General Keith Alexander said that under the administration's proposal the agency would work with telecommunications companies to retrieve data on "specific numbers that have a terrorist nexus." "Rather than us taking all the data, all we're going to get is that data that directly links to a terrorist's number," he said on FOX News Channel's "Special Report with Bret Baier." "This is an approach that I think meets the intent of protecting our civil liberties and privacy and the security of this country," he said. Alexander denied that the NSA listens to all phone calls and reads all emails. "I would get more respect if we could do all that. If you think about all the data that's out there, it's wrong. We don't do it. We wouldn't do it not even close."

Solves- Domestic

Obama plan key --- key first step to broader reform and only alternative to worse alternatives

Serwer 14 (Adam,- D.C.-based Reporter at msnbc “NSA reform proposals fail to fully protect privacy”)

“Right now the Obama proposal seems better and much more comprehensive, but again, these two proposals are trying to supercede proposals already on the table that end bulk collection and do a lot more,” says Mark Jaycox of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “These proposals are competing with one privacy advocates already do support.” While privacy advocates prefer the Obama administration’s proposal to the one put forth by the House intelligence committee Tuesday or the Senate intelligence committee bill proposed months ago, as described in news reports, the White House plan would only affect collection of phone records. Yet the program, the breadth of which was first revealed through leaks facilitated by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last June, is only one aspect of the government’s claimed surveillance powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. “We know that 215 is potentially used, and we have always suspected, that it’s also used for financial records, credit card records, and we also know from the FISA court opinions that they used it for Internet metadata,” says Jaycox, calling the phone records program “one patch of a veritable quilt.” That’s why privacy advocates, while preferring Obama’s proposal to the ones put forth by the intelligence committees, prefer the plan Sensenbrenner and Leahy are backing. “The biggest problem with the Obama proposal is that it doesn’t deal with other records collection under 215, much less all the other authorities,” says Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The phone records program is just the tip of the iceberg.” The NSA has also relied on legal authority granted in Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and Executive Order 12333 for some of its spying powers. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the intelligence committee who proposed a bill similar to the plan the White House is backing, said that the focus on the phone records program doesn’t mean other reform proposals are off the table. “I’m assuming that this is not the end of what the administration is proposing, but the beginning,” said Schiff. “I think they decided to focus on the phone records program first because that was of the most concern to the public.” As for the Sensenbrenner-Leahy proposal, Schiff said it would have a difficult time passing. “I’m not sure that bill can move through the Congress,” Schiff said. “I think what the president has proposed is much more likely to navigate the difficult political course on the Hill, because it is a good balance between the need to get the information to protect the country and protect the privacy interests of the public.” Privacy advocates take heart in the fact that the Obama administration and the intelligence committee proposals are positioning themselves as curbing the NSA program that thus far has been the focus of public outrage. Two government panels that have examined the NSA’s phone records program have concluded that it has been of little use in preventing terror attacks, contrary to the agency’s claims. “The White House understands that we need to do something to deal with the issue of holding bulk collection because of the perception of our constituents,” Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking member on the intelligence committee, told reporters Tuesday.
Obama bill is the only alternative to house legislation which can’t solve our impacts

Ackerman 14 (Spencer,- national security editor for Guardian “NSA critics express 'deep concern' over route change for House reform bill”)

Congressional critics of the bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency fear that its allies are circumventing them in the House of Representatives. The House parliamentarian, who oversees procedural matters, has determined that a new bill that substantially modifies the seminal 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will go through the intelligence committee rather than the judiciary committee, a move that two congressional aides consider “highly unusual.” Seemingly an arcane parliamentary issue, the jurisdiction question reveals a subterranean and intense fight within the House about the future course of US surveillance in the post-Edward Snowden era. The fight does not align with partisan divides, with both sides claiming both Republican and Democratic support. The bill, authored by Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan and Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, would largely get the NSA out of the business of collecting US phone data in bulk. Rogers and Ruppersberger, both staunch advocates of the NSA and until now just as staunch defenders of bulk collection, are the leaders of the intelligence committee. Yet the House judiciary committee thought it was the natural choice for primary legislative jurisdiction over the Fisa Transparency and Modernization Act, introduced on Tuesday. While the intelligence committee oversees US spy activities, the judiciary committee has oversight responsibilities over surveillance law. The judiciary committee is also a stronghold of support for a rival bill, the USA Freedom Act, two of whose principal sponsors are its top Democrat and a former GOP chairman. The Freedom Act also ends NSA bulk collection, but includes more civil libertarian provisions, such as the prior approval of a judge to force phone companies to turn over customer data and a threshold requirement of relevance to an ongoing investigation to secure such approval. Ruppersberger, in a press conference on Tuesday, blasted the USA Freedom Act, saying it would make Americans “less safe.” But the USA Freedom Act, despite also being centrally concerned with intelligence policy, was given primarily to the judiciary committee, raising an expectation on the committee that the same would hold for Rogers and Ruppersberger’s bill despite the committee affiliations of its sponsors. A congressional aide who would only speak on condition of anonymity said it was “new and different that a bill that amends Fisa wouldn’t come to us first." The House parliamentarian, Thomas Wickham, declined to comment. Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, issued a statement on Wednesday expressing “deep concern” about the jurisdictional switch. “I am deeply concerned that today, for what appears to be the first time ever, a Fisa reform bill has been sent first to the House intelligence committee. The House judiciary committee must assert its critically important role with regard to Fisa reform efforts so as to ensure that our constitutional liberties are properly protected as we seek to promote national security,” Nadler said. The suspicion amongst some Hill staffers is that the next step for Rogers and Ruppersberger, after securing approval from the full intelligence committee, will be to attempt to get their bill to the House floor without putting it before the judiciary committee at all. Circumventing the judiciary committee, staffers said, would reflect the difficulties Rogers and Ruppersberger would have winning the panel’s backing for their bill. While on the surface the bill has similarities with the USA Freedom Act, the intelligence leaders’ proposal would not require a judge’s approval before the government compels telecoms or internet providers to turn over customer data, which an aide called a “fatal flaw” of the bill for the judiciary panel. Yet the USA Freedom Act itself faces significant congressional obstacles. Despite possessing 142 co-sponsors in the House, the bill has been bottled up in a judiciary subcommittee since January. The committee chairman, Republican Bob Goodlatte of Wisconsin, has given it lukewarm support. Its backers say the bill might be modified or even renamed as a way to shore up its prospects. Advocates detect hostility from House leadership of both parties, to say nothing of the NSA and the Obama administration. The administration has, to the committee leadership’s frustration, studiously denied expressing any opinion on the bill, which panel members read as opposition. Both camps are claiming the Obama administration for their own. Rogers and Ruppersberger, appearing to cut off the USA Freedom Act at the pass, declared themselves “very, very close” on Tuesday to a deal with the White House over surveillance. Hours later, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a USA Freedom Act supporter, said Obama’s forthcoming surveillance reform proposals show “it's very clear now that the administration agrees with us.” But in an indication of the USA Freedom Act’s uncertain course, Wyden, joined by fellow Senate bulk-surveillance critics Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado, urged the president to end bulk surveillance unilaterally, without recourse to Congress. All sides are waiting for Obama’s specific proposals, which the administration expects to unveil this week. The GOP leadership permitted a floor debate in July on an amendment that would have killed NSA bulk surveillance outright, and which came close to passage. The amendment’s architect, Republican Justin Amash of Michigan, backs the USA Freedom Act. But the speaker of the House, John Boehner, came out on Tuesday in favor of Rogers and Ruppersberger’s bill, and Boehner has great influence over what will come to the House floor.

Solvency- Cyber

New info-sharing initiatives are vital --- Congress is key

Corrin 14 (Amber,- Senior staff writer, Federal Times/C4ISR and Networks at Gannett Government Media Corporation “Alexander: Congress should address cyberthreat information sharing”)

Under the program, DHS and other agencies are to share cyber threat intelligence between the government and owners and operators of critical infrastructure. Information-sharing also is a key component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s cyber framework released in February. In a March 7 appearance at Georgetown University in Washington, Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, once again called for expanded threat-intelligence sharing. “We have a lot of capabilities in our government that we ought to share, analogous to the way we share capabilities to defend our nation in physical space,” Alexander said. . “If a bank is attacked by another nation-state [in cyberspace], our country shouldn’t say, ‘good luck with that.’ Because if the bank were attacked in physical space with missiles, we wouldn’t say, ‘you have to have your own missile defense system.’ In this space we have to figure out how that government-industry partnership will work.” Echoing previous appeals for Congress to pass laws to catch up with technology, Alexander said that effective cyber information-sharing hinges on legislation. “This is a team sport – not just NSA and Cyber Command. It’s DHS, FBI and many others,” he said. “The government has to work with industry. We have to have the [policies] and we’re working our way through, but the key thing we need is legislation.”

Info sharing is vital to cybersecurity --- solves largest threats

Dickinson 14 (Russell,- Online Marketing Executive/Ecommerce Analyst at Misco, quoting qualified folk “Cyber Security Forum Highlights Importance Of Information Sharing”)

When it comes to cyber security, it is critical for industry sectors or professional communities to share information so that threats can be identified, attacker tactics exposed and attacks mitigated, data security professionals believe. This was one of the points raised by participants at the London SC Congress 2014, Computer Weekly reported. Brian Brackenborough, chief information security officer at Channel 4, used as example the security forum established by the UK media industry. It has grown to become an international information sharing portal and Brackenborough described it as "one of the most successful security strategies" he had ever witnessed. This example should be followed by other industries, he added. That view was supported by Thomson Reuters' information security director Daniel Schatz, who said that information sharing enabled sectors or communities to access actionable intelligence. They can find out about attacker tactics and plan their actions accordingly, Schatz said. The panellists also drew attention to the issue of insider threats. According to Frank Florentine, head of consultancy firm LilyCo, this represents one of the most serious security problems and it's worth remembering that technical experts tend to be overlooked. Another point raised during the discussion was the importance of a focused response. This means business organisations need to concern themselves primarily with threats relevant to their industry vertical and their specific business activity. If cyber security chiefs try to address every potential threat, they will end up defending nothing, as Schatz put it. Last but not least, companies should raise awareness and responsibility among their staff. One way of doing that is by educating them about the security risks they face at home, which will also affect their attitude to corporate cyber security.

Info sharing provisions are key

Clinton ’14 (Larry,- President & CEO Internet Security Alliance http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Clinton%20Amended.pdf)

This realization has nothing to do with politics. It is based on the fact that in cyber conflicts, it is the private sector that is most likely to be on the front lines and it is the networks owned and operated by the private sector that provide the critical infrastructure ---both the regulated and non-regulated ones---upon which any modern nation relies. Government does not have all the answers and often will not be the best judge of how to manage private systems. Altering our strategy to give the federal government final say over how private companies manage their systems will be costly, inefficient and ineffectual. Cyber security must be achieved through a true partnership between the public and private sectors. We specifically endorsed this foundation as embraced in these documents: “The current critical infrastructure protection partnership is sound, the framework is widely accepted, and the construct is one in which both government and industry are heavily invested. The current partnership model has accomplished a great deal. However, an effective and sustainable system of cybersecurity requires a fuller implementation of the voluntary industry-­‐government partnership originally described in the NIPP. Abandoning the core tenets of the model in favor of a more government-­‐centric set of mandates would be counterproductive to both our economic and national security. Rather than creating a new mechanism to accommodate the public-­‐private partnership, government and industry need to continue to develop and enhance the existing one.”1 In an attempt to develop our own policy proposals via the established partnership model, we not only notified the White House of our intent to create the industry White Paper, but reached out to them on a regular basis to keep them informed of our progress. We discussed the work at the forums established under the NIPP, such as the IT Sector Coordinating Council meetings, which are regularly attended by DHS staff. When the paper was completed, well prior to release, we sent a full copy to the White House for their review and comment. We requested, and eventually received, a one hour meeting at the White House to brief them on our proposals and requested ongoing interaction so that we could, as partners, come to a common ground on the way forward. Unfortunately, no subsequent meetings were scheduled and we were never briefed on the White House’s own---substantially different---approach until it was released and sent to the Congress. III. WE HAVE THE TOOLS TO STOP BASIC ATTACKS The Committee is aware of numerous and varied cyber attacks. Indeed, the Internet is under attack all day, every day, and while we successfully deal with the vast majority of the attacks, we also must aggressively improve our cyber security. However, not all attacks are the same. Cyber attacks can of course be segmented many ways, but given the shortage of time, we can create two broad categories: one of basic attacks (which can be extremely damaging) and one of very sophisticated attacks. Most cyber attacks fall into the first---the basic ---category. Although these attacks can be devastating from many different perspectives, they also are largely preventable. Several different sources, including government, industry and independent evaluators, have concluded that the vast majority of these attacks ---between 80 and 90% --- could be prevented or successfully mitigated simply by adopting best practices and standards that already exist. Among the sources who have reported this finding, we can list the CIA, the NSA, PricewaterhouseCoopers and CIO Magazine. Most recently, a comprehensive study jointly conducted by the U.S. Secret Service and Verizon included a forensic analysis of hundreds of breaches and literally thousands of data points and concluded that 94% of these, otherwise successful, cyber attacks could have been successful managed simply by employing existing standards and practices. IV. WHY ARE WE NOT STOPPING THE BASIC ATTACKS? Cost. Some have suggested that the market has failed to produce the needed technology to address the cyber threat. That is not the case. President Obama’s own Cyberspace Policy Review documents the fact that the private sector has developed many adequate mechanisms to address our cyber insecurity, but they are not being deployed: “many technical and network management solutions that would greatly enhance security already exist in the marketplace but are not always used because of cost and complexity.”2 This finding is substantiated by multiple independent surveys that also identified cost as the biggest barrier to deploying effective cyber security solutions. This research shows that although many enterprises are investing heavily in cybersecurity, many others, largely due to the economic downturn, are reducing their cybersecurity investments.3 The fact is that many companies don’t see an adequate ROI to cyber investments. This real world problem cannot be permanently wiped away by granting a government department the power to mandate uneconomic expenditures as President Obama himself pointed out last year at the White House: “Due to the interconnected nature of the system this lack of uniform implementation of sound security practices both undermines critical infrastructure and makes using traditional regulatory mechanisms difficult to achieve security.”4 Rather, we need to find ways to work within the partnership to encourage firms to make investments that may go beyond their own commercial risk management requirements for security, but might rise to the level of a broader national interest. This principle was recognized in the creation of the original NIPP: “The success of the [public-­‐private] partnership depends on articulating the mutual benefits to government and private sector partners. While articulating the value proposition to the government typically is clear, it is often more difficult to articulate the direct benefits of participation for the private sector.... In assessing the value proposition for the private sector, there is a clear national security and homeland security interest in ensuring the collective protection of the Nation’s [critical infrastructure and key resources] (CI/KR).

Ext – Solves Bulk Collection

Obama proposal solves bulk collection --- most qualified ev

Greenwald 14 (Glenn,- Winner of Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award, Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, commentator, and author of three New York Times best-selling books on politics and law Foreign Policy magazine named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013 “Obama’s New NSA Proposal and Democratic Partisan Hackery”)

This proposal differs in significant respects from the incredibly vague and cosmetic “reforms” Obama suggested in his highly touted NSA speech in January. Although bereft of details, it was widely assumed that Obama’s January proposal would not end the bulk data collection program at all, but rather simply shift it to the telecoms, by simultaneously requiring that the telecoms keep all calling records for 5 years (the amount of time the NSA now keeps those records) and make them available to the government on demand. But under Obama’s latest proposal, the telecoms “would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would” (the law currently requires 18 month retention) and “the NSA could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.” As always with Obama, it remains to be seen whether his words will be followed by any real corresponding actions. That he claims to support a bill does not mean he will actually try to have Congress enact it. The details, still unknown, matter a great deal. And even if this did end the domestic bulk collection spying program, it would leave undisturbed the vast bulk of the NSA’s collect-it-all system of suspicionless spying. Nonetheless, this clearly constitutes an attempt by Obama to depict himself as trying to end the NSA’s domestic bulk surveillance program, which was the first program we reported with Snowden documents. I agree with the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, who told the New York Times: “We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the NSA’s bulk collection of call records should end.” This new proposal would not, as some have tried to suggest, simply shift the program to telecoms. Telecoms – obviously – already have their customers’ phone records, and the key to any proposal is that it not expand the length of time they are required to retain those records (though telecoms only have their specific customers’ records, which means that – unlike the current NSA program – no one party would hold a comprehensive data base of all calls). As reported by Savage, Obama’s proposal does nothing to change how long telecoms keep these records (“the administration considered and rejected imposing a mandate on phone companies that they hold on to their customers’ calling records for a period longer than the 18 months that federal regulations already generally require”). That’s why, if enacted as he’s proposing it, Obama’s plan could actually end the NSA’s bulk collection program.

Ext – Solves Trust

Reform can rebuild trust with public and allies

FitzGerald ’13 (12-18 Ben,- senior fellow and director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security “NSA revelations: Fallout can serve our nation”)

Loss of trust, however, remains the fundamental issue. Washington cannot fix this just by acceding to reforms suggested by others. The administration, with congressional support, must launch a proactive reform agenda, which would demonstrate an understanding of citizens’ concerns — allies and businesses alike. The components are straightforward: public outreach to concerned constituencies, such as Tuesday’s meeting with technology leaders, amendments to policy and law — for example, updating the Safe Harbor frameworks for privacy protection — and review of the National Security Agency’s oversight mechanisms. While these procedural steps are clear, the government can do more. The Snowden revelations are about trust as much as technological frontiers — so Washington’s efforts must focus on confidence building. Security and openness need not be mutually exclusive and technological capability should not be the key to defining operational limits. Confidence can be re-established through government-led development of the explicit principles that set a better balance between security and openness. These principles must be formalized in government agencies’ policies, federal laws, Supreme Court rulings and congressional oversight establishing the government mechanisms to balance security and openness. Credibly addressing this balance represents Washington’s best chance to rebuild the trust that has been so eroded. It is also an opportunity to recast the Snowden revelations as a reason to establish international norms that will govern all nations that are now developing and using similar surveillance capabilities. What is required is to establish standards that Washington can hold itself and others to in terms of healthy collaboration with business, productive relationships with allies and appropriate protections for the data of private citizens. Powerful surveillance capabilities will only grow over time. The United States must therefore establish a new “higher ground” in the international community to lead morally as well as technologically and ensure mutual accountability among governments. The key is to act quickly. Though the United States needs to retain robust foreign surveillance, it is clear that the fallout from the NSA revelations will continue until proactive steps — rooted in trust, policy and law — are taken.

Politics NB

Politics is a net benefit- the Freedom Act has a bipartisan consensus that the plan would have to upset to pass

BCN ’15 [Business Cloud News, USA Freedom Act passes ending bulk data collection, May 14, 2015, http://www.businesscloudnews.com/2015/05/14/usa-freedom-act-passes-ending-bulk-data-collection/]

“The bill’s authors have worked hard to forge a bipartisan consensus, and the approved bill is supported by the Obama Administration, including the intelligence community. The bill now moves to the other side of the Capitol, and we hope that the Senate will use the June 1 expiration of Section 215 and other legal authorities to modernize and reform our surveillance programs, while recognizing the importance of protecting Americans from harm,” she added.