Big Brother is Watching!

[Mechanic]

11/20/2002 08:10 AM


THE PENTAGON is building a vast computer system to obtain immediate access to information from e-mail, credit cards, banking transactions and the travel records of American citizens ? all without search warrants. The official in charge of the proposed "Total Information Awareness" system is John M. Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has told The New York Times that it is spying on U.S. citizens of Iraqi origin and may want to lock up suspects in case of war.

Monday, a secret federal appeals court in Washington decided that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court went too far earlier this year in trying to protect the privacy of American citizens from Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's plan to wiretap more people without warrants.

In its campaign to make Americans safer, the Bush administration is sacrificing certain freedoms for uncertain security. It is an especially poor bargain in light of the results to date ? confusing warnings that cite "spectacular" but unspecified threats one day and withdraw them the next.

None of this suggests that terrorism is not a grave threat. Terrorism is a difficult enemy for an open society, because it is so easy for the terrorists to take advantage of our society's freedoms to plan their attacks. Good intelligence gathering is arguably more important than smart bombs in averting clandestine attacks.

But the terrifying, elusive nature of such a threat is not enough reason to erode these freedoms. A war on terrorism does not mean that national security always trumps individual rights.

The Fourth Amendment's right to privacy is providing little resistance to government snooping efforts. The amendment ensures citizens protection from unreasonable searches and requires "probable cause" that a crime has been committed for warrants.

That guarantee apparently would not apply to suspicious Americans of Iraqi origin, who could face arrest. Nor would it protect citizens from Mr. Poindexter's computer spying operation that would log all manner of personal information in a massive government data bank.

Monday's decision by the secret appeals court dealt another blow to the Fourth Amendment. The court is a one-sided tribunal of conservative judges ? all appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist ? that hears only the government's side of a case behind closed doors. The court ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was wrong when it said that Mr. Ashcroft had exceeded his authority by making it easier for federal prosecutors to spy on Americans. Characteristically, Mr. Ashcroft swiftly announced that he would greatly expand the number of agents and prosecutors using the new wiretap authority. As a result, federal prosecutors will be able to wiretap people suspected of acting for foreign governments, even if the prosecutor's main purpose is prosecuting a crime, not intelligence gathering. This means that prosecutors without enough evidence of "probable cause" to get a search warrant can seek an intelligence wiretap, thereby skirting the Fourth Amendment.

The appeals court said that Mr. Ashcroft actions "come close" to the Constitution's minimum warrant requirement. "Close" simply isn't good enough when it comes to preserving fundamental freedoms. The Supreme Court should overturn this violation of the Constitution.

[Mechanic]

Secret U.S. court OKs electronic spying

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 18, 2002, 10:03 PM PT

update WASHINGTON--A secretive federal court on Monday granted police broad authority to monitor Internet use, record keystrokes and employ other surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects.
In an unexpected and near-complete victory for law enforcement, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review overturned a lower court's decision and said that Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for new powers was reasonable.

The 56-page ruling removes procedural barriers for federal agents conducting surveillance under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law, enacted as part of post-Watergate reforms, permits sweeping electronic surveillance, telephone eavesdropping and surreptitious searches of residences and offices.

At a press conference Monday afternoon, Ashcroft applauded the ruling, characterizing it as a "victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people."

Ashcroft said the ruling marks a new era of collaboration between police and intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency.

"This decision allows law enforcement officials to learn from intelligence officials, and vice versa, as a means of sort of allowing the information to flow from one community to another," Ashcroft said. "This will greatly enhance our ability to put pieces together that different agencies have. I believe this is a giant step forward."

The lower court, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, had said there must be a well-defined wall separating domestic police agencies from spy agencies. It accused the FBI of submitting incorrect information under oath in more than 75 cases, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh.

The lower court's decision, written in May, went so far as to say that changes to the Justice Department's procedures were necessary "to protect the privacy of Americans in these highly intrusive surveillances and searches."

Justice Department lawyers argued that the USA Patriot Act, signed by President George W. Bush last fall, made any such wall obsolete and unnecessary. The Patriot Act also changed the requirements for FISA surveillance, saying that espionage or terrorist acts did not have to be the primary purpose of the investigation but only a "significant purpose."

The review court agreed with Ashcroft, even suggesting that greater use of FISA surveillance conceivably could have thwarted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It ruled that Ashcroft's proposed procedures, "if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, certainly come close."

Civil libertarians said they were alarmed by the ruling, the public version of which was censored for security reasons. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the appeals court to uphold the lower court's decision.

Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said, "Because the FISA now applies to ordinary criminal matters if they are dressed up as national security inquiries, the new rules could open the door to circumvention of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements. The result: rubber-stamp judicial consent to phone and Internet surveillance, even in regular criminal cases, and FBI access to medical, educational and other business records that conceivably relate to foreign intelligence probes."

FISA authorizes judges on the secret court, which always meets behind closed doors, to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes if "there is probable cause to believe" that a terrorist, spy, or foreign political organization is involved. Police are not required to meet the same legal standards that are required under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and eavesdropping, when conducting surveillance in normal investigations.

During the 1980s, the Justice Department began interpreting the law as limiting FISA orders to cases in which no criminal prosecution was planned. In 1995, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a wall created between FBI intelligence agents--who have security clearances--and Justice Department prosecutors in FISA investigations.

But by mid-2001, attitudes inside the Justice Department began to shift in favor of eroding that wall, and Congress virtually eliminated it when enacting the Patriot Act. In March 2002, Ashcroft responded with new "Intelligence Sharing Procedures" that allowed the free exchange of information among the FBI, spy agencies and prosecutors.

The initial FISA court rejected Ashcroft's procedures as not authorized by the Patriot Act, adopting the 1995 Reno guidelines instead. The review court rejected that analysis Monday, saying that Congress "clearly did not preclude or limit the government's use or proposed use of foreign intelligence information, which included evidence of certain kinds of criminal activity, in a criminal prosecution."

[megados]

On the one hand one can easily argue for the increased demand for surveilance in the wake of Sept 11. If such measures were in place at the time, it could have helped to prevent the tragedy that unfolded. The timing is good in the wake of that and other events, for those who would push in that direction; since such measures would be more "palatable" to ordinary citizens at this time. Before the attacks, it would have been a very tough-sell.


Now . . . one wonders, just how far-reaching this can end up to be, and what the exact criteria for a surveilance warrant would be. Since they only seem to be spelling out that terrorists, and such would be targets, how long will it be until other "categories" are found to fit the description through loopholes and clouded wording? This, I believe is only a first step in what I believe will be a slow erosion fo fourth amendment rights for ordinary citizens.

Big Brother indeed . . . 18 years late, but still . . .

[sailor590]

Tempest computer + good encryption = privacy

[Rubes1]

Sounds like an excuse for a witchhunt on the american people.Terrorists are more intelligent than to use the open internet.They might as well be scanning cb radio.simply pathetic.Ashcroft must be in the running for Reno's minute of fame.


Rubes1

[Makaha]

Originally posted by tunamandude
as off the wall this might sound, i dont mind if the feds fbi or whom ever it is uses this rule to fight terrorism....

Allow me to retort to that statement with this quote;

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

~ 'nuff said! :mad:

[JD490]

Sounds like in WW2 the American citizens of Japanese decent were locked up and their property stolen. My friends family owned a large piece of land they farmed in southern California. When his father and grandfather were locked up there land was stolen from them. The land is now worth a millions of dollars. Remember the story about the FBI agents in AZ and New York that were catching on to the September 11th plot, but higher ups put a stop to there investigation. Proper FBI investigations can work without going back to the 1940 Hoover days. We must not give up our rights to government intrusions in the name of fighting terrorism. If we do the terrorist win because we will be living like they do in there country paranoid, and distrustful of everyone.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Makaha
Allow me to retort to that statement with this quote;

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

~ 'nuff said! :mad:

In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, President Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln's point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.

[phoztech]

well i would just say that i dont mind if they go snooping around as long as the spoils of such snoops cant be used in a court of law... however if they prevent a catastrophe then more power to them. the only problem comes in when the terrorists are let go because of an unlawful "search and seizure"... but hey that is where the CIA steps in and makes someone disappear.

[PB&J]

an edited excerpt from http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1108.shtml

Excuse me if I don’t join in all the senseless celebration over creation of yet another mammoth bureaucracy of the federal government. Pardon me if I don’t go ga-ga over a federal agency that has been given unlimited powers to spy on Americans, trample all over the First and Fourth Amendments, ignore the privacy of anyone it chooses and violate the rights of every man, woman and child who used to live in the Land of the Free.

Our own paranoia has accomplished what Osama bin Laden and his minions could not with hijacked airplanes and vague threats about future attacks – these fears have forced America to abandon its principles and create a police state.

This new Department of Homeland Security has the power to wiretap any American it wants, without a court order, without cause and without justification to any higher authority. Homeland Security goon squads will have the power to enter any American home, without a search warrant, without probable cause, simply because someone somewhere says “hey, this guy might be a threat.” No checks and balances, no due process. Nothing.

A secret court decision last May already gives the Justice Department expanded powers to wiretap phones, spy on Americans and “share information” with other law enforcement agencies.

These powers, granted under a dangerous piece of legislation called the “USA Patriot Act,” allow Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign away the normal rights and protections that Americans used to enjoy – little things like probable cause, due process and the now forgotten belief that any accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Look closer at the powers granted under the act and you will find many scary things .

They include provisions to allow private citizens to spy on other private citizens without fear of prosecution if the Department determines their actions were conducted “in the national interest.”

“I’ve read some of the abstracts on the new law and they take the handcuffs off people like me,” says private detective Andrew Burlingame. “I can tap anyone I damn well please. All I have to do is claim I thought the guy was a terrorist.”

Under the new law, an agent of the Department of Homeland Security can walk into your bank, flash a badge and demand to see your checking and saving account records. No court order. All they need is the “presumption of guilt.” They can stop you in your car without cause and search it and you. They can hold you in jail for 30 days or more without filing any charges or allowing you to make any phone calls.

They can call up America Online and put a trace on all your Internet activity without a court order. They can require Visa to turn over all your credit card activity records without notice.

"Again, the process only requires an internal administrative review and not the involvement of any independent judicial authority," says retired judge Macklin. "It violates all previous standards for due process and probable cause."
In other words, they can do any damn thing they want and there isn’t a thing that any of us can do about it.

[X_Factor]

A Defense Department agency recently considered--and rejected--a far-reaching plan that would sharply curtail online anonymity by tagging e-mail and Web browsing with unique markers for each Internet user.
Read more about the government and the Internet


The idea involved creating secure areas of the Internet that could be accessed only if a user had such a marker, called eDNA, according to a report in Friday's New York Times.

eDNA grew out of a private brainstorming session that included Tony Tether, president of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the newspaper said, and that would have required at least some Internet users to adopt biometric identifiers such as voice or fingerprints to authenticate themselves.



A DARPA spokeswoman said on Friday that the idea, which had been proposed by the agency, was no longer being considered. "We were intrigued by the difficult computing science research involved in creating network capabilities that would provide the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world," spokeswoman Jan Walker said in a telephone interview.

Walker said it was a "decision by DARPA management" not to pursue the idea, which was explored at a two-day workshop in California in August and which drew sharp criticism from the group of computer and privacy experts that DARPA convened to review the proposal.

Depending on how eDNA might have been implemented, Congress could have enacted a law requiring Internet providers to offer connectivity only to authenticated users, or government regulations could have ordered that fundamental protocols such as TCP/IP be rewritten or new ones created to handle authentication techniques.

Friday's report comes as a DARPA unit, the Information Awareness Office (IAO), has come under fire for its plan to create a prototype of a massive database that would collect information about everything from Americans' credit card purchases to veterinary records and public information. Run by John Poindexter, the retired vice admiral who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and who became embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, the IAO also was involved in the eDNA review.


At the same time, the government has had notable success in strengthening its oversight of Internet activities. Earlier this week, the Senate passed a bill, expected to be signed by President Bush this month, to create a Department of Homeland Security in a massive reorganization of federal agencies. A portion of the bill, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act, expands the ability of police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order, and grants Internet providers more latitude to disclose information about subscribers to police.

Also this week, a secretive federal court removed procedural barriers for federal agents conducting surveillance, giving them broad authority to monitor Internet use, record keystrokes and employ other surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects.

Defense official: No privacy at risk
On Wednesday, Defense Department undersecretary Pete Aldridge defended the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program to reporters, saying "there are no privacy issues" at stake with a prototype under development. DARPA was just creating a system that would be turned over to police and intelligence agencies for operational use when complete, Aldridge said.

"The purpose of TIA would be to determine the feasibility of searching vast quantities of data to determine links and patterns indicative of terrorist activities," Aldridge said. "This is an important research project to determine the feasibility of using certain transactions and events to discover and respond to terrorists before they act."

For the last few years, the federal government has fretted about Internet anonymity, which can exist in a weak form when people connect from behind firewalls or through large Internet providers, or in a strong form when technologies such as anonymous remailers or Zero Knowledge's now-moribund Freedom network are used.

In March 2000, then-Attorney General Janet Reno complained about law enforcement's "inability to trace criminals who hide their identities online" at an event to release a report on unlawful conduct online that suggested restrictions on anonymity. Former FBI director Louis Freeh also called for the Internet industry to keep records on customers' activity, saying the bureau would "encourage the Internet provider industry to maintain subscriber and call information."

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court said in the McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission case that broad restrictions on anonymity violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

[JD490]

I hope the supreme court has the foresight to strike this obvious trampling of the bill of rights.

[JD490]

I know, but sometimes the high court still reverses things that every one thinks they wont.