NSA Part 3

In my two previous posts on the NSA I reiterated the notion that an independent review commission was desperately needed to check the power associated with the agency's overbearing practices such as phone and email metadata collection. Then I stumbled across an article in the New York Times that mentioned how a panel had already been set up. Here are the facts:

• The panel has 5 members, each picked by the President: 
• Richard Clarke : former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism 
• Michael Morell : former deputy director of the CIA
• Geoffrey Stone : University of Chicago Law Professor
• Cass Sunstein : Harvard Law School scholar
• Peter Swire : expert in privacy law at the Georgia Institute of Technology
• The President called for the creation of this panel on August 27, 2013
• The panel issued a report, titled "Liberty and Security in a Changing World", with 46 key recommendations
• Despite the broad scope of the panel's expertise in intelligence, communications, and counterterrorism, the report reflected a solid consensus among its members (a good sign)
• The most significant recommendation was to keep data in the hands of telecommunications companies or a private consortium, with necessary court orders required to access the information
• This recommendation defers from the status quo because the NSA currently has full access to all data from communication companies 

In my opinion, here are some PROs and CONs of the panel and their report:

PROs:

• the panel is obviously experienced and diversified, with some sitting in academia and others being long time members of the national security apparatus
• the report calls for an objective third party (a private consortium) to check government power
• the panel strongly advises separating private sector data from public sector usage- a very balanced approach
• separation of private sector data from public usage can set a strong precedent for future cases/situations 

CONs:

• Are a meager 5 panelists adequate enough to complete this job? 
• We're not sure if any personal bias on Obama's behalf was involved in the process- after all, two of the professors come from the University of Chicago and Harvard- two schools that Obama attended 
• I'm not sure if the 5 panelists have more liberal standings, which would significantly affect their view between privacy and national security
• There is still no check on the judicial part of the process, in other words, a search warrant authorizing the NSA to see private data still relies on the judgment of one person

Questions:

• What process did Obama use to pick these panelists?
• Would the process have been more impartial if Congress had picked the panelists? 
• How much impact will this report have? How will it sway all three government branches? 
• If Obama does agree that a separation between private data and public usage of such data is needed, how will he go about implementing this idea? Will it be via executive order or congressional lawmaking? 
• Who will be in the "private consortium"?
• Could the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court use three judges instead of one to authorize search warrants? (majority rules- only 2/3 would need to concur)