<div dir="ltr">Their bios are here: <a href="http://www.pclob.gov/about-us/leadership" target="_blank">http://www.pclob.gov/about-us/leadership</a><div><br></div><div>And a bit more info on Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Oversight_Board#Nominations" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Oversight_Board#Nominations</a></div><div><br></div><div>The PCLOB issued two major reports this year. The first, civil liberties folks loved, on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, where PCLOB analyzed it and found it both illegal and unconstitutional: <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140123/11362425968/civil-liberties-board-completely-destroys-arguments-bulk-metadata-collection-program-is-both-illegal-unconstitutional.shtml" target="_blank">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140123/11362425968/civil-liberties-board-completely-destroys-arguments-bulk-metadata-collection-program-is-both-illegal-unconstitutional.shtml</a></div><div><br></div><div>The second, people were less excited about, on Section 702 of the FISA, where the PCLOB raised concerns and suggested reforms, but basically said it was legal and effective: <a href="http://www.pclob.gov/All%20Documents/Report%20on%20the%20Section%20702%20Program/PCLOB-Section-702-Report-PRE-RELEASE.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pclob.gov/All%20Documents/Report%20on%20the%20Section%20702%20Program/PCLOB-Section-702-Report-PRE-RELEASE.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>Section 702 is "upstream collection", which includes taking traffic off of the Internet backbones. The Board declined to consider this "bulk collection" because it always involved a targeted selector, and (in my personal opinion) totally missed the point of what bulk collection means. The EFF did an outstanding infographic on what is happening, that I wish the PCLOB was more aligned with: <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2014/07/24/backbone-3c-color.jpg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/files/2014/07/24/backbone-3c-color.jpg</a></div><div><br></div><div>Those two reports consumed the PCLOB for a long, long time, and they're now working on a bunch of things, including Executive Order 12333. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>I don't want to go into too much detail about the people, and in part because I don't want to reduce a set of 5 complicated people to something like "partisan lines", but it feels like the board's power dynamic is something like: 2 more establishment-friendly people, 2 people who are more critical of power, and 1 person who seems capable of leaning either way.</div><div><br></div><div>I encourage you to read the two primary reports they published -- some individual board members include additional statements and recommendations not endorsed by the entire board, that can help shed light on their internal debates.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Eric</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Walton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:noloader@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=noloader@gmail.com&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">noloader@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Eric Mill <<a href="mailto:eric@konklone.com" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&tf=1&to=eric@konklone.com&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">eric@konklone.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> The US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be having a public<br>
> all-day meeting on November 12th on exactly this: "Defining Privacy".<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.pclob.gov/newsroom/20141020/" target="_blank">http://www.pclob.gov/newsroom/20141020/</a><br>
><br>
> I've been to their meetings before, in person here in DC, and I find some<br>
> (not all) of the board members to be in sync with many (not all) of the<br>
> norms of the privacy and security community.<br>
</span>Out of curiosity, who are the board members?<br>
<br>
It would be a real drag if the organization was setup like Citizens<br>
for Fire Safety. The action committee campaigned to continue use of<br>
toxic chemicals as a fire retardant at the expense of resident's and<br>
firefighters' lives. Later, it was learned the two or three members of<br>
Citizens for Fire Safety were chemical companies.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><a href="https://konklone.com" target="_blank">konklone.com</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/konklone" target="_blank">@konklone</a><br></div></div>
</div></div>