Former DHS Chief Privacy Officer was called a 'terrorist' because she was concerned about our civil rights

Mary Ellen Callahan was the Chief Privacy Officer (and the Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer) at the Department of Homeland Security from 2009 until 2012 (though, don't tell DHS, since they still have a page on their website about her claiming she still has that role -- even though she left over a year ago). You have to imagine that being the Chief Privacy Officer within DHS (or any part of the federal government, really) is a pretty thankless job, and it appears that was absolutely the case when Callahan was there. Last night, she was given an award by the IAPP, the International Association of Privacy Professionals -- and used it as an opportunity to reveal the work environment in her old job. From the sound of those in attendance, she gave quite a speech, unloading on the lack of respect for privacy in both the Department of Homeland Security and the wider intelligence community.

She apparently claimed that the number of privacy officers at the NSA was zero -- including the Chief Privacy Officer of the NSA. In other words, the position within the NSA is a joke, and that person has no interest, at all, in protecting Americans' privacy. But, apparently, she was just warming up, because (according to other attendees), she claimed that her office was accused of being "terrorists" once a month both by others at DHS as well as in the wider intelligence community. Furthermore, she was told that they would make her testify after the next terrorist attack, claiming it would be her fault, for daring to protect Americans' privacy. To her credit, Callahan apparently told those pressuring her that she would "happily" testify in support of her efforts to protect the privacy of Americans.

While this won't surprise the more cynical among you, it's an incredibly damning statement about how our intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security view privacy, and piddly little things like the 4th Amendment. It also shows how merely hiring a "chief privacy officer" doesn't mean that an agency actually is concerned about privacy or that it makes sure to protect the privacy of the American public. It's quite common that defenders of DHS, DOJ and NSA overreach will point to things like "privacy officers" as if that means they take privacy seriously. However, it's often somewhat like a privacy policy -- something you can point to, but which no one pays attention to. And, there had always been assumptions that anyone who took that role seriously would get pressure, but it sounds like the pressure was even greater and more ridiculous than most people expected. Hopefully Callahan will speak out further on the kind of pressure she was put under while in that job.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131002/02052624725/former-dhs-chief-privacy-officer-recounts-how-she-was-regularly-called-terrorist-intelligence-community.shtml

Judge orders the CIA to disclose spying violations of Americans:

The CIA must disclose certain materials concerning actual or suspected intelligence violations that occurred after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a federal judge ruled.
   
Since 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has repeatedly requests the reports that various federal agencies had pursuant to their roles under executive order 13462.
   
Signed by President George W. Bush, that order ensures "that the president and other officers of the United States with responsibility for the security of the nation and the advancement of its interests have access to accurate, insightful, objective, and timely information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign powers."
   
President Barack Obama amended the order, which established the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, with executive order 13516 in 2009.
   
The orders direct agencies to send their reports to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a five-member committee of the board, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
   
In refusing to divulge the reports they made since Sept. 11, 2001, the agencies cited FOIA § 552(b), which grants certain documents "be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
   
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed suit in Oakland, Calif., claiming a failure by the agencies to demonstrate that the information was exempt from disclosure.
   
U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong ordered the disclosure of certain information on Monday, finding that the agencies had failed to fulfill their burden with regard to Vaughn indices, a FOIA requirement that indexes redacted and withheld information.
   
"Having reviewed the voluminous materials submitted in connection with the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the court finds that ... the Vaughn submissions provided by the defendants are not sufficiently specific to allow the court to determine whether the withheld information falls within the claimed FOIA exemptions justifying nondisclosure," the 49-page ruling states. "The court also finds that no defendant has performed an adequate segregability analysis. In light of these deficiencies, the court concludes that ... defendants have failed to sustain their burden to demonstrate that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under the claimed exemptions. Therefore, the defendants must either release the withheld information they failed to show is exempt from disclosure under FOIA or revise their respective Vaughn submissions."
     
The agencies failed to provide a particularized explanation of how disclosure of withheld information in redacted documents would damage the claimed interest protected by nondisclosure, Armstrong said.
     
As such, the agencies must hand over information that Armstrong did not deem was properly withheld, or they must provide satisfactory supplemental Vaughn indices and declarations.
     
"In the event that any defendant decides to revise its Vaughn submissions, the defendant should bear in mind that the purpose of the submissions is not merely to inform the plaintiff of the agency's conclusion that a particular document or portion thereof is exempt from disclosure under one or more of the statutory exemptions, but to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to intelligently advocate for the release of the withheld information and to afford the court an opportunity to intelligently review the soundness of the withholding," the ruling states.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/02/ciaspy.pdf