Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Pentagon 'to End' Talon Data-Gathering Program

Surrre. A new name somewheres else and the basteds are back in biz.
---
Pentagon to End Talon Data-Gathering Program

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 25, 2007; A10

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as undersecretary of defense for intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr. is moving to end the controversial Talon electronic data program, which collected and circulated unverified reports about people and organizations that allegedly threaten Defense Department facilities.

Clapper, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, "has assessed the results of the Talon program and does not believe they merit continuing the program as currently constituted, particularly in light of its image in Congress and the media," according to a statement released in his name yesterday by a Pentagon spokesman.

Talon, launched in 2003 with an eye toward Sept. 11, 2001, came under public scrutiny in December 2005 with the disclosure that it had collected data on anti-military protesters and peaceful demonstrators. More recently, the American Civil Liberties Union released an internal Pentagon report showing that, as of 18 months ago, Talon had about 13,000 entries, of which 2,821 involved reports on U.S. citizens.

The Talon system was part of the Defense Department's growing effort under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Clapper's predecessor, Stephen A. Cambone, to gather intelligence within the United States, which officials at that time argued was imperative as they worked to detect and prevent potentially catastrophic terrorist assaults.

The Clapper statement says that the Defense Department must continue "to document and assess potential threats to Defense Department resources" but that any new system, unlike Talon, "must lay to rest the distrust and concern about the department's commitment to civil rights."

The development was first reported by Reuters yesterday.

In answer to questions before his confirmation hearing, Clapper, who has worked for 43 years within military intelligence, said: "The history of the intelligence community is replete with instances of abuse of civil liberties -- well intended, but abuse nonetheless." He said it is "important that the proper balance be struck between the counterintelligence mission, on one hand, and the protection of civil liberties, on the other."

Talon -- which stands for Threat and Local Observation Notices -- is operated under the direction of the Counterintelligence Field Activity, which was established in September 2002 by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz. CIFA was originally charged with coordinating policy and overseeing the domestic counterintelligence activities of Pentagon agencies and the armed forces.

The agency's size and budget are classified, but congressional sources have said that CIFA had spent more than $1 billion through last October. One counterintelligence official at that time estimated that CIFA had 400 full-time employees and 800 to 900 contractors working for it.

Last August, CIFA Director David A. Burtt II and his top deputy, Joseph Hefferon, resigned in the wake of a scandal involving CIFA contracts that went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade. Wade pleaded guilty in February 2006 to conspiring to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif).

In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing in December, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pledged to look "in greater detail" at CIFA's activities.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

101 WAYS TO MASSACRE STUDENTS

Related

Key 'No Child' Initiative Probed
Reading First officials profited off materials toward which federal government steered states.
---
April 19, 2007

By Carolyn Baker

Once again, a horrific eruption of violence in the United States has been turned into a National Enquirer “blood and circuses” spectacle on every television network in the nation. Curiously, grotesque and ghastly as the carnage is, it seems that Americans are not impacted by bloodbaths until they occur in their own back yards. Juan Cole said it best yesterday when he stated, “the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech should give us a baseline for what the Iraqis are actually living through. They have two Virginia Tech-style attacks every single day”.

We seem incapable of coming to terms with violence: Either we distance ourselves from it as “something happening over there” or we voyeuristically wallow in it 24/7 with grisly images of a massacre or the incessant repetition of a video tape made by a perpetrator exuding psychotic rage from every pore. In neither case does America appear to be capable of asking the deeper, disturbing questions in relation to such incidents, but obsessively leaps to “the healing” which Gary Corseri so brilliantly slammed in his piece earlier this week, “Blacksburg: Let The Healing Not Begin.”

As I watched some of the coverage of the Virginia Tech incident this past week, I could not help but be reminded of another massacre that occurred thirty-seven years ago next month at Kent State University. On that day I was being pepper gassed as I marched in solidarity at Michigan State with my fallen comrades at Kent State who were massacred by a government which at that very moment was murdering thousands of Cambodians, dropping bombs it swore it wasn’t dropping and lying through its teeth to the American people in the throes of the Vietnam War. Today I teach with a colleague who on May 4, 1970 took a stray bullet at Kent State and became permanently disabled as a result.

But while Kent State and Virginia Tech are venues of physical assault on students, almost no one is aware of the myriad levels on which, in other venues and without the spilling of blood, students are being massacred. Another article this past week which escaped the notice of many but riveted my attention was Danny Schechter’s “A Student Crisis”. Writing, Schechter says, in the spirit of Roberta Flack’s “Killing Me Softly”, he reminds us of “the way student loans have become a noose around the necks of a whole generation of students making our colleges and universities likely sets for the next edition of one of those crime scene shows.” Furthermore, in recent weeks the corruption around student loans involving kickbacks, gifts, trips, and other perks to college and university officials involved in the lending process has been exposed and appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. California Congressman, George Miller, compares the corruption and abuse in the student loan industry to that of Halliburton. Moreover, Miller’s investigations have also revealed that as well as being deeply mired in corruption, the industry is also involved in datamining of students’ personal records, ostensibly to determine their eligibility for loans.

Meanwhile says Schecter:

Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student loan company, announced yesterday that it would be bought by a group of private investors in a $25 billion deal that could reduce public scrutiny of the lender at a time when the student loan industry is under siege.

The enormous deal underscores the potential for profit that Wall Street sees in the $85 billion-a-year student loan industry, even as Congress considers slashing billions of dollars in federal loan subsidies and an expanding nationwide probe reveals fresh conflicts of interest in the student lending world.”

Schechter knows about these things as a result of his splendid documentary “In Debt We Trust” which illumines not only the student loan debacle but the seduction of financially unsophisticated college freshmen into the black hole of credit card debt—an average of $20,000 per college graduate.

To fully comprehend the economic plight of today’s college student/graduate, I strongly recommend Anya Kamenetz’s superb book Generation Debt and her article “Greed Aid” which was part of her 2004 “Generation Debt” series of articles in Village Voice. Kamenetz analyzes the student loan/debt issue and reveals the lifelong misery that it is inflicting on millions of students. Tragically, and God forbid, the seeds sown in this present economic assault on students could eventually produce the harvest of another literal massacre on some college or university campus somewhere in the future by some troubled graduate, buried in mid-life under a crushing mountain of debt.

But the economic warfare being waged on students is only one aspect of the massacre. Even more brutal, yet silent and seemingly benign, is the massacre of minds. Supposedly, students attend college and universities to get an education, and supposedly, even if they attend a community college, they are required to show up with basic skills. Yet anyone who has been teaching college students for the past twenty years knows that only a tiny segment of incoming freshmen are capable of writing an English sentence, and even more frightening is the reality that non-English speakers from other countries are often capable of doing so while students educated in the U.S. aren’t. Sadly, I’ve discovered that overall, college students do not like to read and have trouble concentrating on textbook or other reading assignments. It is not uncommon for them to purchase $150 textbooks and almost never open them. Faculty frequently report that they are only able to lecture 15 or 20 minutes and then must incorporate a Power Point presentation or utilize video or DVD material in order not to lose the attention of their students. In other words, the present generation of high school graduates often finds concepts without the dazzle of special effects, elusive and monotonous.

Increasingly, children in public schools are experiencing horrific levels of violence on a daily basis as they are forced to deal with physical or verbal bullying from other students and ineffectual school administrations with no funds to put bullies and their parents in programs that would adequately address the issue. Periodically, protracted bullying erupts in a Columbine or a Virginia Tech incident, perpetrated either by the bully or one of his victims. Then everyone rushes to “heal and move on”, never willing to explore the deeper roots of the violence.

Overwhelmingly, as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which Greg Palast has so appropriately named “No Child’s Behind Left”, students coming to college from a public school seem to excel in test-taking, but have virtually no critical thinking skills. In my experience, I find that students enjoy critically thinking once they have learned the skill, but they require training for it because it is a foreign concept.

NCLB is a gargantuan assault not only on the minds of public school and college students, but on the entire society. It is, in my opinion, the principal reason, besides skillfully-cultivated fear, that Americans could be lied into the Iraq War. When Colin Powell made his bogus case for war in front of the United Nations in 2003, a society of critical thinkers would have raised their eyebrows and asked more probing questions. As it was, a British news channel exposed his plagiarism of a graduate student’s essay as a fundamental piece of his presentation. (Students serve many purposes for the ruling elite, do they not?) When during that presentation Powell held up a vial of white powder, touting it as anthrax, critically thinking Americans should not have turned as white as the powder with fear, but rather demanded proof that the vial was not filled with baking soda. When Condoleeza Rice threatened that if we did not invade Iraq, a mushroom cloud would hang over America because Iraq was purportedly in the process of manufacturing a nuclear bomb, a country of critical thinkers would have unambiguously and boisterously insisted on proof beyond the whining, photo-op assertions of the former Chevron board member. But as one of my students naively asked later, “If it wasn’t true, why did they have it on CNN?”

My answer: Because CNN is corporate media whose job it is to act as stenographers for the regime and “sell” its agenda to a nation of citizens who are incapable of thinking analytically, and in 2003, the scam was successful beyond the wildest dreams of the necons who devised it.

Naturally, in my field I am constantly reminded of how trivial and irrelevant America’s public education system has rendered the study of history. Most college students have no sense of it and report enduring the mind-numbing boredom of high school history classes either by ditching, text-messaging, or falling asleep. Increasingly, as with art and music programs, funding for history is being slashed both in high schools and colleges and increased for engineering and computer technology programs.

Some years ago I heard John Judge remark that “a people who have no knowledge of their history are easily manipulated and dominated.” Deny students the ability to read, write, critically think, and study history, and you have a nation of sycophants who ask no questions and comply with virtually any directive in the name of patriotism or national security as they are almost certain to do when they are sold the regime’s propaganda regarding the National I.D. Act and the U.S. government’s plan to incorporate its provisions in 2009. After all, who among them is willing to have the privilege of obtaining or renewing a drivers license, opening a bank account, or boarding a plane denied?

So what is the destiny of this generation of students? Where will they end up besides unfathomably in debt? Sadly, they are facing a future hammered by global warming, global energy depletion, and global economic meltdown. They will go forth from the halls of academia, and if they are not well-connected, they will take the jobs they can get. They will graduate into a world of outsourced American jobs which will force them to accept mind and soul-numbing positions with insufficient pay, often with few or no benefits. Those in tech fields may fare better than those in other professions, I wouldn’t be willing to bet that in another decade they will be delirious with a sense of job satisfaction.

Many, wide-eyed with idealism, will enter the teaching profession, determined to teach differently than they were taught, but according to statistics from 2005, half of the teachers surveyed plan to be out of the profession by 2010. These hopeful education majors will vow to give students a genuine education, not just prepare pupils for NCLB tests, but unless they are teaching in private schools where NCLB is not incorporated and which also pay less than public schools, they will be discouraged and demoralized within less than a decade. In public schools they will soon discover that whether they like NCLB or not, their salaries will be tied to the test scores they produce, in which case, why not “teach to the test” instead of giving students an education? They may learn to live with a system that makes authentic teaching virtually impossible, in which case, they will become robotic moving parts in a nationwide dumbing-down mechanism, or choosing not to live with it, they will abandon the career for which they have trained in favor of remaining true to their calling as educators.

Increasingly, trade and tech schools will be the choice of many high school graduates, and a college education will ultimately become untenable financially for the middle-class student and impractical in terms of its value in securing lucrative employment. As the current housing bubble worsens and impacts the credit industry and interest rates, and as the Bush administration endeavors to eliminate the Mortgage Tax Credit, owning one’s home will not be in the future of many college graduates. And given the new bankruptcy laws of 2005, declaring bankruptcy in the face of grinding debt will not be an option, and this generation of graduates will never, ever get ahead financially.

So on the one hand, the carnage at Virginia Tech is equivalent to what innocent Iraqis and most U.S. combat troops experience at least twice a week, and therefore, brings home to our own soil the horrors of mass violence. But at the same time if we are among those critically thinking Americans to whom I alluded above, then we must also consider the full spectrum of assault being waged on today’s students which encompasses high schools, colleges, and universities across America, and we must consider the consequences of those assaults in terms of the misery, despair, and even violence that they are certain to evoke in the coming years.

In recent months I have been pleased to hear of a resurgence of chapters of SDS (Students For A Democratic Society) at U.S. colleges and universities. As well as protesting the Iraq War, some have been instrumental in organizing for wage increases and benefits for campus workers. Hopefully, they will also begin or have already begun to organize against the economic warfare being waged on students by the debt industry.

URL

U.S. Exposed Personal Data

Census Bureau Posted 63,000 Social Security Numbers Online

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 21, 2007; A05

For more than a decade, the Census Bureau posted on a public Web site the Social Security numbers of 63,000 people who received financial aid, officials said yesterday. The apparent violation of federal privacy law prompted concerns about identity theft.

Government officials removed the data from the Web site on April 13, the day they were alerted to the breach by an Illinois farmer who discovered the numbers while surfing the Internet. They did not publicize the matter until yesterday, saying they needed the delay to enable information-security officials to contact those whose numbers were revealed and to contact "at least a half-dozen" mirror sites.

"We take full responsibility for this and offer no excuses for it," said Terri Teuber, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We absolutely do not think it was appropriate."

A watchdog group countered that officials tried to suppress the news.

"The bottom line is the government screwed up," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch. "What's really important is that they now try to rectify the problem. Thousands of research groups have copies of this site."

Government officials said they knew of no misuse of the personal data, but the breach underscores the ease with which such data can be exposed in the digital age.

Last month, Los Alamos National Laboratory discovered that a subcontractor working on a security system in 1998 had posted the names and Social Security numbers of 550 lab workers on the subcontractor's Web site. The site was removed that day, a spokesman said.

In the current incident, Marsha Bergmeier said she was bored April 12, so she did an Internet search for her farm's name. It brought up a link to FedSpending.org, a site created by OMB Watch to allow monitoring of federal spending.

The site includes a searchable database of federal contract information, and her farm loan amount, under an Agriculture Department program, was listed. Also listed, Bergmeier discovered, were the Social Security numbers of 28,000 farmers.

"I was in disbelief," she said.

Teuber said the USDA had been using Social Security numbers as part of a 15-digit federal contract identifier number. The practice dates back more than 25 years, she said, to when Social Security numbers were printed on checks. She said the USDA's information-security division was not aware of this continuing practice until last week.

The loans database was part of a larger public Web site run by the Census Bureau, which collects all federal loan and grant data. The site has been up since 1996.

Bureau spokeswoman Ruth Cymber said the site hosts data from about 33 federal agencies. On Tuesday, the agency removed all contract identifier numbers from the site. A review is underway to see if other agencies exposed personal data.

The USDA's action "would seem to violate the Privacy Act," said Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology. "Social Security numbers should not be used as an identifier for account purposes."

The USDA is offering one year of free credit monitoring to those affected.

Staff researchers Robert Lyford and Richard Drezen contributed to this report.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Lenders Misusing Student Database

Improper Searches Raise Privacy Fears

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 15, 2007; A01

Some lending companies with access to a national database that contains confidential information on tens of millions of student borrowers have repeatedly searched it in ways that violate federal rules, raising alarms about data mining and abuse of privacy, government and university officials said.

The improper searching has grown so pervasive that officials said the Education Department is considering a temporary shutdown of the government-run database to review access policies and tighten security. Some worry that businesses are trolling for marketing data they can use to bombard students with mass mailings or other solicitations.

Students' Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and sensitive financial information such as loan balances are in the database, which contains 60 million student records and is covered by federal privacy laws. "We are just in shock that student data could be compromised like this," said Nancy Hoover, director of financial aid at Denison University in Ohio.

Education Department spokeswoman Katherine McLane said the agency has spent more than $650,000 since 2003 to safeguard the database. The department has blocked thousands of users that it deemed unqualified for access after security reviews, McLane said, and it has blocked 246 users from the student loan industry for inappropriately accessing the data.

In general, the department allows lenders to search records in the database only if they have a student's permission or a financial relationship with the student.

The department has been "vigilant in its monitoring for unauthorized uses" of the database, McLane said.

Concerns about possible abuses of the database are emerging as the student loan industry is under investigation by congressional Democrats and the New York attorney general. Critics say the $85 billion-a-year industry has cozied up to government and university officials who are in a position to help lenders.

This month, a previously obscure Education Department official named Matteo Fontana was suspended after the revelation that he owned more than $100,000 worth of stock in a student loan company while he worked in a unit that helped oversee the industry -- and the student loan database. The stock holding raised questions about a possible violation of conflict-of-interest rules.

The database, known as the National Student Loan Data System, was created in 1993 to help determine whether students are eligible for student aid and to assist in collecting loan payments. About 29,000 university financial aid administrators and 7,500 loan company employees have access to it.

In a recent meeting with university financial aid directors, Theresa S. Shaw, chief operating officer of the department's Office of Federal Student Aid, which manages the database, said lenders have been mining it for student data with increasing frequency, according to three participants at the meeting. In the department's hierarchy, Shaw ranks above Fontana.

"She said the data mining had gotten out of control, and they were trying to tone it down," said Eileen K. O'Leary, director of student aid and finance at Stonehill College in Massachusetts, who was at the Feb. 26 session. "They'd seen the mining for a few years, but now they felt it had grown exponentially."

The department first started noticing a problem in mid-2003 when loan consolidation became more popular, according to an agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. As companies began to aggressively look for low-risk borrowers to target for consolidation plans, they turned to the database for prospective customers, the official said.

Database users can view only one student record at a time, and the department can monitor each time they view an entry. "When we see them go in and out very quickly, that's when it raises flags" about data mining, the official said. Such abuse would violate department rules.

Officials grew so concerned that in April 2005, the department sent out a letter to database users warning that inappropriate use of the system -- in other words, looking for information without authorization -- could cause their access to be revoked. The letter said the agency was "specifically troubled" that lenders were giving unauthorized users -- such as marketing firms, collection agencies and loan brokerage firms -- the ability to access the database.

"Information may not be used for any other purpose, including the marketing of student loans or other products," wrote Fontana, then general manager of a unit in the department that oversaw the lending industry.

In August 2005, Cathy H. Lewis, the department's assistant inspector general, echoed those concerns in a memo to Shaw that warned of security problems with the database and the lack of regular audit trails on the system.

Through a spokeswoman, Shaw declined to comment. Fontana did not return telephone calls.

After the warnings, inappropriate usage of the system seemed to decline, according to the department official who requested anonymity. But several months ago, top managers learned that the practice had resumed -- "a pattern that's very alarming," the official said.

Some senior education officials are advocating a temporary shutdown of access to the database until tighter security measures can be put in place, the official said. McLane confirmed that such deliberations are taking place.

It is not certain that the lenders that inappropriately used the database used information from it to market directly to students. Credit bureaus, for instance, also hold personal information on borrowers that can be used to solicit customers.

But department officials believe lenders are probably using the database for marketing, according to three current and former agency employees who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Some university financial aid administrators suspect loan companies are probably targeting students in the database who take out loans directly with the government, known as direct loans.

"The database is being misused by the industry to raid the direct loan portfolio," said Craig Munier, director of scholarships and financial aid at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, who was at the meeting with Shaw. "It's certainly a misuse of the intended purpose of the information and was certainly not what we intended in the higher education community when we built" the database.

Some financial aid directors say abuse of the database would explain why some students who have taken out loans only directly with the government are deluged by up to a half-dozen solicitations a day from private loan companies.

"Our students are being inundated with marketing from consolidation companies," said O'Leary, of Stonehill College. "How else are the consolidation companies getting our students' information?"

Some financial aid administrators hope inquiries into the student loan industry will extend to the possible abuse of the database.

"We are hoping that a full congressional investigation can happen," said Hoover, the Denison aid director, who also met with Shaw. "And maybe then we will find out what's really happening."

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Librarian Who Resisted FBI Says Patriot Act Invades Privacy

By Andrew Miga

Associated Press
Thursday, April 12, 2007; A12

A librarian who fended off an FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday that secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.

"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.

In prepared testimony for a Senate panel, Christian said his experience "should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution" about the strain that the government's pursuit of would-be terrorists puts on civil liberties.

He said the government uses the USA Patriot Act and other laws to learn, without proper judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review, what citizens are researching in libraries.

A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general found 48 violations of law or rules in the FBI's use of national security letters from 2003 through 2005. Some congressional critics want to tighten legal safeguards on the letters.

" 'Trust us' doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can use the letters to acquire telephone, e-mail, travel and financial records without a judge's approval. Letter recipients are not allowed to disclose their involvement in a request.

Prosecutors have said secrecy is needed to avoid alerting suspects.

In July 2005, the FBI issued a national security letter to Christian and three other Connecticut librarians. The letter sought computer subscriber data for a 45-minute period on Feb. 15, 2005, during which a terrorist threat was thought to have been transmitted. A gag order prevented the librarians from talking about the letter.

The librarians refused to comply with the FBI's request.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a legal challenge on behalf of the librarians but did not name them.

A judge ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarians from participating in debate over how the Patriot Act should be rewritten. Prosecutors appealed, but in April 2006 they said they would no longer seek to enforce a gag order.

Last year, authorities dropped their demand for the records, saying they had discounted the potential threat that led to the request.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Patriot Act Debacle

TODAY'S COLUMNIST

By Gary Aldrich
March 28, 2007

The FBI has recently issued a new set of guidelines to agents regarding the authority granted to this powerful law-enforcement agency under the Patriot Act. The guidelines were prompted by a recent investigation by the inspector general's office of the Department of Justice to determine if there had been abuses stemming from these fairly severe law changes.

The investigation found that there have been more than 3,000 instances of agents improperly obtaining phone or other records of those they suspected of breaking the law or engaging in terrorist activity. But, these improprieties were predictable the moment President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law.

Concerns voiced by many protectors of personal liberty, such as former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, were downplayed or ignored altogether in favor of feel-good reassurances from the proponents of big government who claimed rigorous oversight and tightly written policies would serve to protect our rights.

"Perfect" or even "near-perfect" in any federal agency will never exist, even in the vaunted FBI. Well-intentioned agents are people, too. No matter how careful FBI agents try to be, mistakes are often made by those who have simply misunderstood the complicated instructions.
The only "perfect" in a discussion about our personal freedoms is the freedom itself. Liberty and the foundational concepts that fathered the belief that liberty exists for all of mankind are the standards, and everything else falls short of perfection. Liberty is the jewel, as Patrick Henry stated. Everything else is mere setting, or decoration.

The Founding Fathers knew this and wrote our Constitution to set aside those precious rights that should never be compromised. To put a finer point on it, they added a Bill of Rights for those who needed plainer English. The message: The government has no right to take the liberty or freedom of a single innocent citizen.

Sadly, too many would set liberty aside in times of terror and war, to be able to protect innocent lives; thus we have the Patriot Act. Another problem with this law is that it was fashioned by Congress. Any document that comes out of that rendering plant is guaranteed to be imperfect. Consider the current legislation that is supposed to fund the war on terror. It is riddled with pork-barrel spending projects which have nothing to do with national security, totaling billions of dollars.

If Congress can do this to a war-funding budget, then how can we be convinced that the Patriot Act only impacts the rights of terrorists? Alas, the Patriot Act was also used to address other criminal activity unrelated to terrorism. As the Patriot Act was being cobbled together, interested parties, including federal agencies who were seeking to "fix" a multitude of impediments to enforcement, lined up to lobby for their favorite issue.

Today the FBI can enter your home, search around, and doesn't ever have to tell you it was there. You could be perfectly innocent, yet federal agents can go through your most personal effects.

When considering new laws, a test of impact on liberty should be required. We obsess over the environment and demand an impact study before we allow construction projects to move forward. Do we consider our liberty to be worth less than a snail or a rodent?

The federal government does not have even one small agency that spends a minute to discover new or expanded rights for our citizens. There is no agency whose mission is to find and discard unneeded laws, each one having some impact on liberty.

How foolish to assume that any branch of the federal government is watching out for our freedoms. Today the federal government serves somebody's idea of a utopian collective good. Patrick Henry's style of plainspoken English has been replaced by legalistic doubletalk that allows bureaucrats to trample our liberties. Freedom of speech and the freedom to bear arms are threatened. Any freedoms that may offend an aggrieved special-interest group are snatched away without regard to the future impact on our national character, such as the virtues of thinking independently or questioning authority.

Patrick Henry stood up for liberty when there was no constitution and at a time when he could have been hanged for speaking his mind. Surely we can stand up for our liberty today when the only risk to us is an angry stare from a big-government bureaucrat.

Gary Aldrich is a former FBI agent who served in the Clinton White House.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Tapping into privacy

We're being snooped on without proper oversight, and it is time to start caring about the law and our right to privacy again.

By ROBYN BLUMNER
Published March 25, 2007


It just goes to show you what six years of this administration has done to our national psyche. After the torture memos, "state-secrets" defenses, the demise of habeas corpus and secret overseas prisons, what's a little invasion of privacy?

If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales doesn't lose his job due to the bombshell report from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, finding that the FBI flagrantly disregarded express limits on its snooping abilities, then we have become completely inured to the Bush administration's outrages.

Part of me feels sorry for the schmoes that President Bush has surrounded himself with, people like hapless Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel and the lapdog Gonzales. The attorney general has had some of the top legal jobs in the nation, including a stint on the Texas Supreme Court, because his pal George kept pulling him along. But Gonzales is not a sophisticated legal thinker. He is a loyal, partisan, sycophantic hack.

On the Charlie Rose Show in June 2005, Gonzales was promoting the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Some of its provisions were set to expire at the end of that year and there were plenty of critics, including myself, saying that the act had gone too far in trenching on civil liberties.

Gonzales told viewers "if you look honestly at the facts, one must conclude ... that the act has not been used to infringe upon civil liberties."

Now, thanks to Inspector General Fine's findings, we know the honest facts.

From 2003 to 2005, the act was used as cover to violate the privacy of potentially thousands of people in this country. Gonzales' assurances were as empty as were his confirmation hearing claims that he would act independently of the White House.

Fine was charged with reviewing the FBI's use of an administrative subpoena power known as "national security letters" (NSLs). These letters allow the FBI to collect personal telephone and e-mail records as well as credit reports and other financial records without having to get court approval.

The original USA Patriot Act loosened controls on NSLs. It used to be that they were only available under very narrow circumstances - to gather information pertaining to an agent of a foreign power. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI could now use NSLs whenever the records sought are "relevant" to an ongoing terrorist or espionage investigation.

Gathering confidential records without any court supervision meant the FBI was on its honor to police itself, so that innocent people's privacy wouldn't be invaded.

But just the opposite occurred. The agency went hog wild. Between 2003 and 2005, it made 143,000 NSL demands for information, where each demand could be for thousands of records. In 2004, for example, a request for information involving 11,000 separate phone numbers was made using just nine NSLs.

The report found some of this personal information wasn't even examined. It was just uploaded into three separate FBI databases, where it could be accessed by thousands of FBI and non-FBI employees. There was no process for deleting records when it was clear that they involved innocent people. The inspector general found NSLs were used to collect information about people "two or three steps removed from their subjects" without there being suspicious ties. He found that increasingly the agency was focusing on gathering data on Americans and residents.

Then, after all this, the FBI self-reported that only 153 criminal proceedings (which includes things like search warrants in addition to trials) emanated from its 143,000 NSL requests. And the inspector general could document only one case in which the use of an NSL led to a terrorism conviction. One material support for terrorism conviction. That's it.

All the added license given the FBI under the Patriot Act apparently wasn't enough. Fine's 126-page report found case after case of serious misuse of its NSL powers. He attributed it to mismanagement and sloppiness. In my book, it was arrogance and a culture of unaccountability and imperviousness.

On hundreds of occasions, the FBI demanded that companies give up their clients' personal information without an NSL, claiming it was an emergency request and that subpoenas were coming. It wasn't true. No subpoenas had been requested, no NSLs were forthcoming and often no emergency existed.

This utter disregard for privacy rights and the oversight that traditionally protect that privacy, is nothing new for this Justice Department. Gonzales defended the administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. Why should we expect him to keep the FBI operating within lawful bounds?

In that Charlie Rose interview Gonzales said the president "cares very much about the rule of law" and that anyone not respecting it would be "held accountable." Well then, bye-bye Alberto.

It just goes to show you what six years of this administration has done to our national psyche. After the torture memos, "state-secrets" defenses, the demise of habeas corpus and secret overseas prisons, what's a little invasion of privacy?

If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales doesn't lose his job due to the bombshell report from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, finding that the FBI flagrantly disregarded express limits on its snooping abilities, then we have become completely inured to the Bush administration's outrages.

Part of me feels sorry for the schmoes that President Bush has surrounded himself with, people like hapless Harriet Miers, his former White House Counsel and the lapdog Gonzales. The attorney general has had some of the top legal jobs in the nation, including a stint on the Texas Supreme Court, because his pal George kept pulling him along. But Gonzales is not a sophisticated legal thinker. He is a loyal, partisan, sycophantic hack, a fact laid bare during the U.S. attorney firing debacle.

During an appearance on The Charlie Rose Show in June 2005, Gonzales' was promoting the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Some of its provisions were set to expire at the end of that year and there were plenty of critics, including myself, saying that the act had gone too far in trenching on civil liberties.

Gonzales told viewers "if you look honestly at the facts, one must conclude ... that the act has not been used to infringe upon civil liberties."

Now, thanks to Inspector General Fine's findings, we know the honest facts.

From 2003 to 2005 the act was used to violate the privacy of potentially thousands of people in this country. Gonzales' assurances were as empty as were his confirmation hearing claims that he would act independently of the White House.

Fine was charged with reviewing the FBI's use of an administrative subpoena power known as "national security letters" (NSLs).These letters allow the FBI to collect personal telephone and e-mail records as well as credit reports and other financial records without having to get court approval.

The original USA Patriot Act loosened controls on NSLs. It used to be that they were only available under very narrow circumstances -to gather information pertaining to an agent of a foreign power. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI could now use NSLs whenever the records sought are "relevant" to an ongoing terrorist or espionage investigation.

Getting out from under any court supervision meant the FBI was on its honor to police itself, so that innocent people's privacy wouldn't be invaded.

But just the opposite occurred. The agency went hog wild. Between 2003 and 2005 it made 143,000 NSL demands for information, where each demand could be for thousands of records. In 2004, for example, a request for information involving 11,000 separate phone numbers was made using just nine NSLs.

The report found that some of this personal information wasn't even examined. It was just uploaded into three separate FBI databases, where it could be accessed by thousands of FBI and non-FBI employees. There was no process for deleting records when it was clear that the subject was innocent. The inspector general found that NSLs were used to gather information about people "two or three steps removed from their subjects" without there being suspicious connections. He found that increasingly the agency was focusing its attention on gathering data on Americans and lawful permanent residents.

Then, after all this, the FBI self-reported that only 153 criminal proceedings (which includes things like search warrants in addition to trials) emanated from its 143,000 NSL requests. And the inspector general could document only one case in which the use of an NSL led to a terrorism conviction. One material support for terrorism conviction. That's it.

Yet, even with all the added license given the FBI under the Patriot Act, it wasn't enough. Fine's report found that the agency engaged in widespread misuse of its NSL powers.

On hundreds of occasions, the FBI demanded that companies give up their clients' personal information without an NSL, claiming it was an emergency request and that subpoenas were coming. It wasn't true. No subpoenas had been requested, no NSLs were forthcoming and often no emergency existed.

This utter disregard for privacy rights and the oversight processes that traditionally protected that privacy, is nothing new for this Justice Department. Gonzales defended the administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. Why should we expect him to keep the FBI operating within lawful bounds?

In that Charlie Rose interview Gonzales said the president "cares very much about the rule of law" and that anyone not respecting it would be "held accountable." Well then, bye-bye Alberto.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

FBI Analyzes 1,000 People Each Day For Terror Watch List

Terror Database Has Quadrupled In Four Years
U.S. Watch Lists Are Drawn From Massive Clearinghouse

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007; A01

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field reports, captured documents, news from foreign allies and sometimes idle gossip -- arrive in a computer-filled office in McLean, where analysts feed them into the nation's central list of terrorists and terrorism suspects.

Called TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, the list is a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States. It is the wellspring for watch lists distributed to airlines, law enforcement, border posts and U.S. consulates, created to close one of the key intelligence gaps revealed after Sept. 11, 2001: the failure of federal agencies to share what they knew about al-Qaeda operatives.

But in addressing one problem, TIDE has spawned others. Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it. "The single biggest worry that I have is long-term quality control," said Russ Travers, in charge of TIDE at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean. "Where am I going to be, where is my successor going to be, five years down the road?"

TIDE has also created concerns about secrecy, errors and privacy. The list marks the first time foreigners and U.S. citizens are combined in an intelligence database. The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, Travers acknowledged.

The watch lists fed by TIDE, used to monitor everyone entering the country or having even a casual encounter with federal, state and local law enforcement, have a higher bar. But they have become a source of irritation -- and potentially more serious consequences -- for many U.S. citizens and visitors.

In 2004 and 2005, misidentifications accounted for about half of the tens of thousands of times a traveler's name triggered a watch-list hit, the Government Accountability Office reported in September. Congressional committees have criticized the process, some charging that it collects too much information about Americans, others saying it is ineffective against terrorists. Civil rights and privacy groups have called for increased transparency.

"How many are on the lists, how are they compiled, how is the information used, how do they verify it?" asked Lillie Coney, associate director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. Such information is classified, and individuals barred from traveling are not told why.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said last year that his wife had been delayed repeatedly while airlines queried whether Catherine Stevens was the watch-listed Cat Stevens. The listing referred to the Britain-based pop singer who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The reason Islam is not allowed to fly to the United States is secret.

So is the reason Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, remains on the State Department's consular watch list. Detained in New York while en route to Montreal in 2002, Arar was sent by the U.S. government to a year of imprisonment in Syria. Canada, the source of the initial information about Arar, cleared him of all terrorism allegations last September -- three years after his release -- and has since authorized $9 million in compensation.

TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the data. "What's the alternative?" Travers said. "I work under the assumption that we're never going to have perfect information -- fingerprints, DNA -- on 6 billion people across the planet. . . . If someone actually has a better idea, I'm all ears."

'Thousands of Messages'

The electronic journey a piece of terrorism data takes from an intelligence outpost to an airline counter is interrupted at several points for analysis and condensation.

President Bush ordered the intelligence community in 2003 to centralize data on terrorism suspects, and U.S. agencies at home and abroad now send everything they collect to TIDE. It arrives electronically as names to be added or as additional information about people already in the system.

The 80 TIDE analysts get "thousands of messages a day," Travers said, much of the data "fragmentary," "inconsistent" and "sometimes just flat-out wrong." Often the analysts go back to the intelligence agencies for details. "Sometimes you'll get sort of corroborating information," he said, "but many times you're not going to get much. What we use here, rightly or wrongly, is a reasonable-suspicion standard."

Each TIDE listee is given a number, and statistics are kept on nationality and ethnic and religious groups. Some files include aliases and sightings, and others are just a full or partial name, perhaps with a sketchy biography. Sunni and Shiite Muslims are the fastest-growing categories in a database whose entries include Saudi financiers and Colombian revolutionaries. U.S. citizens -- who Travers said make up less than 5 percent of listings -- are included if an "international terrorism nexus" is established. A similar exception for the administration's warrantless wiretap program came under court challenge from privacy and civil rights advocates.

Information Sharing

Every night at 10, TIDE dumps an unclassified version of that day's harvest -- names, dates of birth, countries of origin and passport information -- into a database belonging to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. TIDE's most sensitive information is not included. The FBI adds data about U.S. suspects with no international ties for a combined daily total of 1,000 to 1,500 new names.

Between 5 and 6 a.m., a shift of 24 analysts drawn from the agencies that use watch lists begins a new winnowing process at the center's Crystal City office. The analysts have access to case files at TIDE and the original intelligence sources, said the center's acting director, Rick Kopel.

Decisions on what to add to the Terrorist Screening Center master list are made by midafternoon. The bar is higher than TIDE's; total listings were about 235,000 names as of last fall, according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. The bar is then raised again as agencies decide which names to put on their own watch lists: the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" and "selectee" lists for airlines; Consular Lookout and Support System at the State Department; the Interagency Border and Inspection System at the Department of Homeland Security; and the Justice Department's National Crime Information Center. The criteria each agency use are classified, Kopel said.

Some information may raise a red flag for one agency but not another. "There's a big difference between CLASS and no-fly," Kopel said, referring to State's consular list. "About the only criteria CLASS has is that you're not a U.S. person. . . . Say 'a Mohammed from Syria.' That's useless for me to watch-list here in the United States. But if I'm in Damascus processing visas . . . that might be enough for someone to . . . put a hold on the visa process."

All of the more than 30,000 individuals on the TSA's no-fly list are prohibited from entering an aircraft in the United States. People whose names appear on the longer selectee list -- those the government believes merit watching but does not bar from travel -- are supposed to be subjected to more intense scrutiny.

With little to go on beyond names, airlines find frequent matches. The screening center agent on call will check the file for markers such as sex, age and prior "encounters" with the list. The agent might ask the airlines about the passenger's eye color, height or defining marks, Kopel said. "We'll say, 'Does he have any rings on his left hand?' and they'll say, 'Uh, he doesn't have a left hand.' Okay. We know that [the listed person] lost his left hand making a bomb."

If the answers indicate a match, that "encounter" is fed back into the FBI screening center's files and ultimately to TIDE. Kopel said the agent never tells the airline whether the person trying to board is the suspect. The airlines decide whether to allow the customer to fly.

TSA receives thousands of complaints each year, such as this one released to the Electronic Privacy Information Center in 2004 under the Freedom of Information Act: "Apparently, my name is on some watch list because everytime I fly, I get delayed while the airline personnel call what they say is TSA," wrote a passenger whose name was blacked out. Noting that he was a high-level federal worker, he asked what he could do to remove his name from the list.

The answer, Kopel said, is little. A unit at the screening center responds to complaints, he said, but will not remove a name if it is shared by a terrorism suspect. Instead, people not on the list who share a name with someone listed can be issued letters instructing airline personnel to check with the TSA to verify their identity. The GAO reported that 31 names were removed in 2005.

A Process Under Fire

A recent review of the entire Terrorist Screening Center database was temporarily abandoned when it proved too much work even for the night crew, which generally handles less of a workload. But the no-fly and selectee lists are being scrubbed to emphasize "people we think are a danger to the plane, and not for some other reason they met the criteria," Kopel said.

A separate TSA system that would check every passenger name against the screening center's database has been shelved over concern that it could grow into a massive surveillance program. The Department of Homeland Security was rebuked by Congress in December for trying to develop a risk-assessment program to profile travelers entering and leaving the United States based on airline and financial data.

Kopel insisted that private information on Americans, such as credit-card records, never makes it into the screening center database and that "we rely 100 percent on government-owned information."

The center came in for ridicule last year when CBS's "60 Minutes" noted that 14 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were listed -- five years after their deaths. Kopel defended the listings, saying that "we know for a fact that these people will use names that they believe we are not going to list because they're out of circulation -- either because they're dead or incarcerated. . . . It's not willy-nilly. Every name on the list, there's a reason that it's on there."

Friday, March 9, 2007

Homeland 'Security' Back in the 'Vast Privacy Violations' Business

Homeland Security revives supersnoop
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 8, 2007

Homeland Security officials are testing a supersnoop computer system that sifts through personal information on U.S. citizens to detect possible terrorist attacks, prompting concerns from lawmakers who have called for investigations.

The system uses the same data-mining process that was developed by the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA) project that was banned by Congress in 2003 because of vast privacy violations.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation of the project called ADVISE -- Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement -- was requested by Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

The investigation focuses on whether the program violates privacy laws, and the findings will be released after completion of the Iraq war supplemental spending bill, possibly as early as this week, a panel aide said.

The ADVISE and TIA data-mining projects rely on personal data to track individual behavior and consumer transactions to develop computer algorithms that create a pattern that some behavioral scientists say can predict terrorist behavior.

Data can include credit-card purchases, telephone or Internet details, medical records, travel and banking information.

Privacy concerns prompted lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to introduce legislation in January to require that government agencies disclose data-mining practices in regular reports to Congress.

"A serious discussion on the implications of data-mining programs is long overdue," Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and a sponsor of the bill, said yesterday. Sen. John E. Sununu, New Hampshire Republican, is also a bill sponsor.

"Many Americans are understandably concerned about the idea of secret government programs analyzing their personal information. Congress needs to know more about the operational aspects and privacy implications of data-mining programs before these programs are allowed to go forward," Mr. Feingold said.
A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security did not return a call for comment.

Congress also tucked language inside Homeland Security's spending bill in September requiring an investigation by the agency's inspector general, but allowed $40 million in funding to go forward in this year's budget.

"The ADVISE program is designed to extract relationships and correlations from large amounts of data to produce actionable intelligence on terrorists," the spending bill said. "A prototype is currently available to analysts in Intelligence and Analysis using departmental and other data, including some on U.S. citizens."

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report in March 2003, TIA planned "to use data mining technologies to sift through personal transactions in electronic data to find patterns and associations connected to terrorist threats and activities."

"Recent increased awareness about the existence of the TIA project provoked expressions of concern about the potential for the invasion of privacy of law-abiding citizens by the government, and about the direction of the project by John Poindexter, a central figure in the Iran-Contra affair," the CRS report said.

"While the law enforcement and intelligence communities argue that more sophisticated information gathering techniques are essential to combat today's sophisticated terrorists, civil libertarians worry that the government's increased capability to assemble information will result in increased and unchecked government power, and the erosion of individual privacy," the report said.

ADVISE was initiated in 2003 following the demise of the TIA project.

The new system includes data-mining tools to digest "massive quantities of information from many different sources" to find "hidden relationships in the data," according to a 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on a Homeland Security workshop that outlined this and other technology under development.

The technology is expected to analyze more than 3 million "relationships" or connections per hour, says the report, which included an example of how friends, family members, locations and workplaces can be linked by pinging the data.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Loss of privacy threatens civilization

Privacy or protection?

Sunday, February 11, 2007

While probably more often remembered for his prescient warning that America must beware the too-powerful "military-industrial complex," former five-star general and president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, also possessed a deep understanding of the folly of over-reliance on government power to deliver security to a populace.

In 1949, three years before his election to the presidency and while serving as president of Columbia University, Eisenhower dryly remarked that if security were the ultimate goal of Americans, then "prison ... [where] they'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads," should be their abode of choice. While not as memorable as Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech in 1775 that helped spark a revolution in freedom that echoed through the ages, Eisenhower, too, clearly understood that complete security -- if it ever might be secured -- could only be attained at the cost of freedom itself.

America, for its first two and a quarter centuries, inherently understood that a measure of the price paid for freedom is a certain lack of security -- a degree of risk, as it were. While in prior times of peril our nation back slid in its understanding of this principle of liberty, and allowed government to seize power to the extent fundamental freedom was threatened -- the Alien and Sedition Acts early in the 19th century, the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War era, the "Red Scare" and the "Palmer Raids" in the time of World War I, the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II -- in each instance, corrective action was taken.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 and the resulting and unprecedented power grab by the federal government in its drive to bring "security" to an America frozen with fear over another such attack, for the first time in our nation's history threatens to permanently enshrine the notion that security trumps freedom.

In no sense is the big hand of government power more apparent than in the incessant drive by Washington to abolish any vestige of privacy enjoyed by our citizens. The mantra is a familiar one: "you must be prepared to give up a little privacy in order to have security." The question is often posed, "if you have nothing to hide, why should you be concerned if the government listens in to your phone calls or reads your e-mails?" Ultimately, the administration falls back on the refrain that "we are fighting a new and dangerous enemy, of the sort never contemplated by those who drafted the Fourth Amendment many decades ago, and we need new powers to do meet these grave threats."

The fact is, of course, our Founding Fathers, those geniuses in gray wigs, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that power corrupts and that the power of the government to invade a person's property, belongings and beliefs constitutes the power to control. They understood that if government enjoyed absolute power to invade or take away a person's privacy, then the government enjoyed absolute control over that person, who therefore had no liberty or freedom. It's that simple.

At the time the Bill of Rights was being debated and adopted, and in the first few years thereafter, the United States faced a threat far greater than that posed by potential terrorist cells today. We faced invasion and conquest by the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth: Great Britain.

Yet, in the face of such a threat, our framers deliberately and knowingly limited the ability of the government to invade people's privacy and gather evidence against them. The Fourth Amendment allows government to do so only in those instances in which it has good reason to suspect the person of criminal acts (yes, that includes suspected "terrorist" conduct). To claim that the limitations in the Fourth Amendment do not apply in the year 2007 because the threat we face is somehow different from or worse than the threat we faced two and a quarter centuries ago is at odds with historical reality; it is mere sophistry.

Why is this so important? Is it simply because we don't want the government to learn our bank account balance ... or our medical history ... or our travel patterns ...or whatever? Yes, but not really. It is vitally important that we rectify this frightening erosion of our constitutional underpinning because, as philosopher Ayn Rand correctly concluded in her 1943 novel, "The Fountainhead," privacy is the very foundation of freedom. "Civilization," she said, is the "progress toward a society of privacy." It is after all, "the process of setting man free from men."

Our Founding Fathers understood that. The Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment protects it. This administration disdains it. And the American people truly must re-establish it, if our very notion of a society based on freedom is to survive.

Bob Barr formerly represented the Seventh Congressional District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This article appeared on page C - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Friday, February 2, 2007

Watchdog attacks US swoop for bank secrets

Europe's main privacy watchdog says rights of millions of people and businesses are being abused.
---
Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Europe's main privacy watchdog yesterday said that the banking secrets and rights of millions of people and businesses were being abused on a massive scale by a clandestine programme giving US agencies access to the information. It accused the EU's banks and financial authorities of doing nothing to stop the breaches.

In a damning report on the covert transfer to US agencies of the details of millions of financial transactions by EU citizens, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection supervisor, accused the European Central Bank of complicity in the system that has been used since 9/11 and which was deemed illegal by European data protection agencies two months ago.

Article continues
The Belgium-based company Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) has been supplying the US Treasury and the CIA with details - such as names, account numbers and sums involved - allegedly as part of George Bush's "war on terror".

After 9/11, Swift agreed to cooperate with the US Treasury by creating a system where personal data is transferred to a "black box" owned by the US authorities, enabling "massive transfers of data" and the "focused searching" of the information by US agencies.

The Brussels-based company says it is obliged to cooperate with the US authorities because it is subject to US subpoenas and could be fined for ignoring the requests. The system, which is estimated to include the bank details of more than 4m Britons, was operated secretly for years until it was disclosed last summer.

A Belgian investigation into the scheme found that Swift was operating in uncertain legal territory. Privacy watchdogs across Europe concluded in November that the company was breaching data protection laws and privacy rights.

Mr Hustinx said yesterday that the Swift operation "has breached the trust and private lives of many millions of people". He accused the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank of failing to demand a halt to the operation and of keeping quiet for years on the controversy.

The ECB denied responsibility and called instead for the European and US governments to "clarify" the dilemmas thrown up by a clash between privacy rights and combating terrorism.

In the European parliament, MEPs demanded new rules to bring an end to the mass abuse of people's privacy and data protection rights. Mr Hustinx also warned that the US snooping on European bank transfers could expose European companies to economic espionage and jeopardise commercial transactions.

"What is at stake here is nothing less than the protection of fundamental rights of our citizens," said Jean-Marie Cavada, the French MEP heading the parliament's civil liberties committee.

Questions are also being asked as to whether the Swift case is the only instance of private data being trawled by the US agencies or if telephone, email and insurance data is also being made available.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Terror watch on Mecca pilgrims

The Sunday Times January 21, 2007

David Leppard

THE intelligence agencies are monitoring every Muslim who travels from Britain to Mecca on pilgrimage in a wider effort to piece together intelligence on suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist activity.

A senior Whitehall official has disclosed that the operation targeting trips to the holy city in Saudi Arabia by more than 100,000 British Muslims is part of a trawl by MI5 and MI6 for information about movements of suspected terrorists. It follows evidence that British Islamic terrorists have visited the city before carrying out attacks in Britain and abroad.

The importance of the intelligence operation was one of the reasons given by spy chiefs for maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi government was threatening to break off intelligence ties over a bribery investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into BAE, Britain’s prime defence contractor.

Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6, and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director-general of MI5, told Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that Saudi co-operation in the fight against Al-Qaeda was vital.

A well-placed security official said Scarlett and Manningham-Buller used the Mecca surveillance operation as evidence of the need for continuing intelligence ties with the kingdom: “They made it clear to Goldsmith that they were concerned about the implications for national security of losing Saudi co-operation. They said that every British Muslim who makes the pilgrimage to Mecca was monitored.”

This weekend Muslim leaders voiced their unhappiness about the operation. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “It is absolutely wrong that people who are going to Mecca for entirely religious purposes should be monitored by the security services. It is a sad commentary on Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia.”

The Mecca operation is thought to have been launched after the July 7 London bombings. MI5 discovered that at least two of the suicide bombers had made the holy trip.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Sen. Patrick Leahy: Restoring Privacy and Civil Liberties

Related


US senator blasts Gonzales about Arar, demands answers next week

---

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242

VERMONT


Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,
Hearing On Department Of Justice Oversight
January 18, 2007

Today, this Committee holds an important hearing to examine the operations of the Department of Justice – the federal agency entrusted with ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. I take our oversight responsibility very seriously.

Restoring Privacy and Civil Liberties

In the 32 years since I first came to the Senate – during the era of Watergate and Vietnam – I have never seen a time when our Constitution and fundamental rights as Americans were more threatened by their own government. Just this last weekend, the President and Vice President indicated that they intended to override the will of the American people, as expressed in the most recent national elections, and ignore actions of Congress in order to escalate the war in Iraq. This Administration has circumvented express congressional prohibitions on creating databanks of information on law-abiding Americans over the last five years.

For years, this Administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law. Since this troubling program was first revealed, I have urged this Administration to inform Congress about what the government is doing and to comply with the checks and balances Congress wrote into law in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I welcome the President’s change of course yesterday to not reauthorize this program and to, instead, seek approval for all wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the law requires. We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. This reversal is a good first step, but there are still several outstanding questions that remain. To ensure the balance necessary to achieve both security and liberty for our Nation, the President must also fully inform Congress and the American people about the contours of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order authorizing this surveillance program and of the program itself.

The President has issued signing statement after signing statement declaring the law to be not what Congress passed and he has signed, but what he finds convenient. And, regrettably, the Administration has all too often refused to answer the legitimate oversight questions of the duly-elected representatives of the American people. Unfortunately, this Justice Department has been complicit in advancing these government policies which threaten our basic liberties and overstep the bounds of our Constitution.

Human Rights

The Department has also played a pivotal role, in my view, in eroding basic human rights and undercutting America’s leading role as an advocate for human rights throughout the world. Last week, the world marked the fifth anniversary of the arrival of the first prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with protests. That facility has replaced Abu Ghraib in the eyes of many, including some of our closest allies, as a symbol of repression. Although the President had said that he wanted to close it down, he is now proposing stepped up use and construction projects that threaten to make the detention center at Guantanamo Bay a permanent fixture in the world.

For more than two years, we have sought answers from the Department of Justice about reported and, in some instances, documented cases of the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. I wrote to Attorney General Gonzales regarding press reports that the Central Intelligence Agency has finally acknowledged the existence of additional classified documents detailing the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention policy for terrorism suspects. I am glad that, after initially refusing to provide any new information in response to my inquiries, the Attorney General wrote to me last week to say that he would work to develop “an accommodation that provides the Judiciary Committee with a sufficient understanding of the Department’s position on legal questions related to the CIA program.” That is a good first step, and I will work with him to reach the accommodation that he suggested. But, I remain disappointed that the Department of Justice and the White House have continued to refuse to provide the requested documents to the Committee.

We have a democratic government in which Congress is entitled to know and review government actions. The President and Vice President of the United States should not be operating a secret and separate regime in which their official acts and policies cannot be known by the people’s elected representatives.

The Administration’s secret policies have not only reduced America’s standing around the world to one of the lowest point in our history, but these policies also jeopardize the Department’s own efforts to prosecute terrorism. Last week, USA Today reported that the Department’s terrorism case against Jose Padilla is imperiled by concerns that Mr. Padilla’s treatment during his lengthy detention and back and forth designations as a defendant and enemy combatant have eroded his mental capacity to such a great extent that he cannot fairly be tried. Any trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as the mastermind of 9/11 will have to overcome challenges based on his treatment and detention.

And, after the Administration and the Republican-led Congress eviscerated the Great Writ of habeas corpus -- not just for detainees but for millions of permanent residents living in the United States -- this Department of Justice filed a legal brief expressly supporting that result, raising the specter that millions living in the United States today can now be subjected to indefinite government detention.

Civil Rights and Crime

This week we commemorated the life and contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Sadly, the while the Department has defended the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, I am concerned that it is backing away from the vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act that the President promised only a few months ago. I am concerned that, in nearly six years of power, the Bush Administration has filed only one suit on behalf of African-American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the key section that provides a cause of action for discrimination against minority voters.

I am also deeply concerned that the Department of Justice is retreating from its core mission to hold those who would violate our criminal laws accountable. Last week, the President told us that he plans to spend $1.2 billion more, on top of the billions already sent to Iraq for reconstruction. Despite mounting evidence of widespread corruption, contracting fraud and billions unaccounted for, the Department of Justice has not brought a single criminal case against a corporate contractor in Iraq.

The Department must also do better at addressing the dangers that Americans face at home. According to the FBI’s preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2006, violent crimes in the United States rose, again. Some of us are concerned that this Administration has forgotten the lessons that led to our success during the Clinton years and that the rise in violent crime is related to this Administration’s $2 billion cut in aid to state and local law enforcement programs. While it is more than willing to spend more and more American taxpayers’ funds for police in Iraq, this Administration is cutting back funding for our state and local police at home.

Conclusion

This Committee has a special stewardship role to protect our most cherished rights and liberties as Americans and to make sure that our fundamental freedoms are preserved for future generations. There is much work to be done to repair the damage inflicted on our Constitution and civil liberties during the last six years.

Attorney General Gonzales, I thank you for agreeing to come here today. I look forward to hearing your views and answers to our questions. We need to work together to move forward.

# # # # #

Monday, January 8, 2007

Feds Want Your Internet Records

Feds pushing for Internet records

BY JOHN REINAN
McClatchy Newspapers

MINNEAPOLIS — The federal government wants your Internet provider to keep track of every Web site you visit.

For more than a year, the U.S. Justice Department has been in discussions with Internet companies and privacy rights advocates, trying to come up with a plan that would make it easier for investigators to check records of Web traffic.

The idea is to help law enforcement track down child pornographers. But some see it as another step toward total surveillance of citizens, joining warrantless wiretapping, secret scrutiny of library records and unfettered access to e-mail as another power that could be abused.

"I don't think it's realistic to think that we would create this enormous honeypot of information and then say to the FBI, 'You can only use it for this narrow purpose,'" said Leslie Harris, executive director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes free speech and privacy in communication.

"We have an environment in which we're collecting more and more information on the personal lives of Americans, and our laws are completely inadequate to protect us."

So far, no concrete proposal has emerged, but U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has made it clear that he'd like to see quick action.

In September testimony before a Senate committee, Gonzales painted a graphic and disturbing picture of child pornography on the Web, which he called an urgent threat to children. The production and consumption of child pornography has exploded as the Internet makes it easier to exchange images, Gonzales said.

But federal agents and prosecutors are hampered in their investigations because Internet companies don't routinely keep records of their traffic, he told the committee.

Gonzales also pushed for Internet records tracking in an April speech at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

"Privacy rights must always be accommodated and protected as we conduct our investigations," he said. "(But) the investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers.

"This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time," he said. "Unfortunately, the failure of some Internet service providers to keep records has hampered our ability to conduct investigations in this area."

Internet service providers typically keep records of Web traffic only for short periods, usually 30 to 90 days, as a way to trace technical glitches. Many ISPs, along with privacy advocates, say that it's already easy for government agents to get the information they need to investigate crimes.

The FBI, without a court order, can send a letter to any Internet provider ordering it to maintain records for an investigation, said Kevin Bankston, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that promotes free speech and privacy on the Web.

"There's been no showing that mass surveillance of all Internet users, mandated by the government, is necessary for law enforcement," Bankston said. "If this passes, there would be a chilling effect on free speech if everyone knew that everything they did on the Internet could be tracked back to them."

The government has offered differing rationales for its data-retention plan, said Harris, the privacy advocate.

"I've been in discussions at the Department of Justice where someone would say, 'We want this for child protection. And someone else would say 'National security,' and someone else would say, 'Computer crimes,'" Harris said. "We're operating in the wild, wild West here."

Friday, December 22, 2006

Report Says TSA Violated Privacy Law

Passengers Weren't Told That Brokers Provided Data to Screening Program in '04

By Ellen Nakashima and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 22, 2006; A07

Secure Flight, the U.S. government's stalled program to screen domestic air passengers against terrorism watch lists, violated federal law during a crucial test phase, according to a report to be issued today by the Homeland Security Department's privacy office.

The agency found that by gathering passenger data from commercial brokers in 2004 without notifying the passengers, the program violated a 1974 Privacy Act requirement that the public be made aware of any changes in a federal program that affects the privacy of U.S. citizens. "As ultimately implemented, the commercial data test conducted in connection with the Secure Flight program testing did not match [the Transportation Security Administration's] public announcements," the report states.

The finding marks the first time that the Homeland Security Department has acknowledged that the problem-plagued Secure Flight program has violated the law. It comes at a time when a separate program to screen international passengers is under attack for officials' failure to disclose until recently that they were creating passenger profiles that would be stored for 40 years.

The report on Secure Flight says that "the disparity between what TSA proposed to do and what it actually did in the testing program resulted in significant privacy concerns being raised. . . . Privacy missteps such as these undercut an agency's effort to implement a program effectively, even one that promises to improve security."

Congress has halted Secure Flight, except for testing, until it can allay privacy and security concerns.

The report notes that TSA eventually revised its public notice about the program to reflect more closely the program itself. But it also suggests that Secure Flight will run afoul of the law again unless it follows a set of recommendations, including being transparent about the program's collection and use of passengers' personal information.

TSA Administrator Kip Hawley said that he supports the use of Secure Flight and that his agency is working closely with other government officials to ensure it protects privacy. "We are working in a transparent way," Hawley said, adding that the agency's "challenging" goal is to roll out the program in 2008.

In 2004, the TSA published a Federal Register notice on a data-test phase of the program, saying that "strict firewalls" would prevent any commercial data from mixing with government data. However, this was based on the notion that the Secure Flight contractor, EagleForce Associates Inc. of McLean, would ensure that no commercial data were used, the report said.

But by the time the EagleForce contract was finalized, "it was clear that TSA would receive commercial data," the report says. If, for instance, TSA data for an individual passenger lacked an address or date of birth, EagleForce would obtain the missing information from commercial data brokers.

"The fact that EagleForce had access to the commercial data did not create a firewall," the report says, because under the Privacy Act, in effect, "EagleForce stands in the shoes of TSA."

Moreover, commercial databases provided Eagle Force with data for some individuals who were not air passengers. These people were never notified -- a violation of the privacy act, the report says.

TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the agency has "already implemented or is in the process of implementing" the recommendations contained in the privacy office report. She said the report's conclusions were not surprising, adding that they were "very similar" to those reached last year by the General Accounting Office, the government's auditing arm.

A 2004 probe found that the TSA improperly stored 100 million commercial data records containing personal information on passengers after the agency said no data storage would occur.