digital rights, online privacy and the law

Today we hear that the Justice Department wants to make it easier for the FBI to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents by not requiring little things like evidence, or even allegations that a law probably has been broken!

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Now come on, if even Bush is against something like this, it has to be an obvious violation of civil rights to everyone.  The plan is to get this change put in place before the new administration takes over in January, so this requires the canidates to stand up against this now.  I want to see what position each takes, and I want them to discuss it in an open debate, so American’s can better understand how their rights are at stake.

While John McCain is still hawking that ‘maverick’ tag, don’t believe the hype, instead, let’s look at some recent statements he made that perked my interest, coming out in favor of the Bush administrations’ stance on FISA, warrantless wiretapping/eavesdropping and executive power. Funny thing is, he had the exact opposite opinion on these topics when he was asked in December 2007!

On Wednesday, I documented John McCain’s complete reversal of views — in the last six months alone — on FISA, warrantless eavesdropping and executive power. McCain’s diametrically opposite views were contained in a questionnaire McCain completed for The Boston Globe last December (wherein he rejected many of the Bush/Cheney theories of presidential omnipotence and warrantless eavesdropping) and then a statement McCain issued this week to National Review (wherein he embraced those same theories in order to persuade the Right that he approves of and would continue Bush’s lawless surveillance policies).

Another source states more of what transcribed at the National Review:

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance…

A recent study points out a common problem, people say that security of their private info is important and that they know the risks to their privacy, but their actions tell a different story.  Ever had your social security number used as an ID number?  Yeah, who’s great idea was that?

Eighty-three percent of adults in the March 2008 survey agree that ensuring the security of their personal information is a top priority. Seventy-seven percent believe they know how to properly protect their personal information, while about half (51 percent) believe they are at low risk for their personal information to be used without their permission. However, the survey’s review of 12 everyday activities reveals a startling lack of awareness over how seemingly innocuous activities, such as entering a sweepstakes or filling out a warranty card, can actually compromise the security of personal information, including a person’s name, contact details, income and credit history. In fact, more than half of U.S. adults are not aware of the risks associated with ten of the 12 potentially harmful activities – indicating a significant gap in understanding what could put people at risk for the unauthorized usage or sharing of their personal information, which can lead to greater junk mail volume, increased profiling without consent, and greater exposure to identity theft.

They define some risky behaviors as “..applying for a credit card in a retail store, applying for a bank loan or home mortgage, signing up for a supermarket discount card, donating to political campaigns, requesting information about a product/service seen online, providing personal information to a web site without reviewing its privacy policy, and enrolling in a rewards program, such as frequent flyer or hotel points programs. Non-marketing activities that increase risk, such as having a baby or getting married, were also included in the survey.“  I’ve had this just by buying a house, the data becomes “public record”, which is scary.  Outside of that, if you buy something, please don’t complete and return the warranty or product registration card.

Wiretaps approved by a secret U.S. court overseeing foreign intelligence rose last year, even as Congress was debating a Bush administration request for more authority to fight terrorism.  “The Justice Department said on Wednesday that government applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for wiretap approval rose to 2,371 in 2007, from 2,176 a year earlier. The court’s approval is required to intercept a call involving an American or calls routed through the United States. It was the fifth annual increase in wiretap approvals since the September 11 attacks in 2001 spurred President George W. Bush’s administration to incorporate foreign intelligence wiretaps into its strategy to fight global terrorism. Civil liberties groups and other opponents, angered by a secret warrantless domestic wiretapping program have urged sharp restrictions and oversight of the wiretaps. The latest figures were released as the Justice Department announced it was reorganizing its national security division, which represents the government before the secret court, to cope with the increased workload and staff. The division’s intelligence staff, which has grown to more than 100 lawyers from 20 in 2000, will work in a new office of intelligence, which will be given an expanded role in overseeing foreign wiretapping to ensure it complies with the law.“

Here we go again, another federal employee’s laptop stolen, this time including private health data of 2,500 patients.  Of course the kickers are; the National Institutes of Health sat on this information for a month and the data on the laptop *was not encrypted*, which is against their own regulations.  “Almost 2,500 patients taking part in a federal medical trial recently had their private health data compromised when a researcher’s laptop computer was stolen. The National Institutes of Health, which was responsible for safeguarding the data, made things worse by delaying in notifying the patients. This disturbing incident underscores the need for a strong federal law to protect medical privacy and for greater responsibility by those who handle sensitive medical information. In late February, a laptop belonging to a researcher at the N.I.H.’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute was stolen from the trunk of his car. It contained information about heart disease patients, including their names, dates of birth and diagnoses of their medical conditions. The data was not encrypted as it should have been, which made it possible for an outsider to read. The N.I.H. waited roughly a month before notifying the patients whose data was lost. The release of this information is serious. Heart patients probably do not want their employers or insurance companies, among others, to know the details of their conditions. The breach is also a setback for medical research. Patients are likely to be reluctant to participate in clinical trials if their privacy is not respected.“  Who’s checking on people with sensitive data?  Can people not see the weakest link in that chain?

EFF has a great writeup of a LAtimes article that covers why the fight against illegal wiretaps and surveillance is so important, and how it threatens our most basic right.

Going back to the ’20s, Sanchez reviews multiple occasions when authorities have used spying powers not to protect the country, but to further the political aims of parties and politicians:

The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts — and the presidents they served — had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices — even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often “collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.”

Sanchez traces the history of US government surveillance abuses by both Democrats and Republicans throughout the 20th century. He emphasizes that surveillance isn’t just a threat to privacy — it’s a threat to free speech. That’s why today’s wiretapping debate matters, even to those who may think they have nothing to fear.”

This is the bottom line, and why I’m such a ardent supporter of EFF.  Feel free to join if you are so inclined, but either way, thanks for reading