Yesterday the Department of Homeland Security disclosed that traveler’s laptop computers “or other electronic devices” can be confiscated, without any suspicion of a crime! Better yet, they can make and share copies of your data, have the data translated, unencrypted, etc. This is especially topical for me since I’ll be leaving the country on Sunday with the laptop that I’m typing this on. “Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “The policies . . . are truly alarming,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government’s border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.” So while congress is now looking at it, the article points out that these procedures have been in place for a long time, but only revealed last month, “…because of public interest in this matter.” So this makes me ask, what else should we be interested in that our government is doing so we can discover other ways our rights are being shoved aside? These tactics are excessive and a violation of individual rights, could at least can cause an interruption of business, but at most are a direct invastion of privacy and a violation of civil rights.

I found this pretty interesting, to find out names of sources that a journalist talked to about the government’s secret wiretapping of Americans without court orders, federal investigators are using phone records. So they look to the phone companies for names to find out who talked to the Times about the investigation into how the Feds used the phone companies to spy on its citizens.

In the leak investigation, Justice Department officials are using phone records in an Arlington, Va. federal grand jury proceeding to ferret out James Risen’s sources, according to the New York Times. One presumes the government is using subpoenas or National Security Letters to get Risen or his suspected sources’ phone records, then hauling former government officials in front of the grand jury. But given that this Administration operates on the belief that the Fourth Amendment does not apply during wartime, that the Justice Department is not pursuing criminal charges against officials involved in wiretapping Americans without court approval and that the Administration claims to have King-like powers in the Time of Terror, the presumption that legal process was involved might be quaint.

And so explains my reluctance to even look at an iPhone, considering buying one could lock you in a contract with AT&T until 2010! To learn what that gets you, check the ongoing AT&T coverage at eff.org.

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.

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 

Nice to see that others are coming to the same conclusion, after considering all the facts, that telecoms don’t deserve any immunity (retroactive or otherwise) in regards to their illegal wiretapping activities.

Classified documents and testimony about the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program show that it’s not necessary to grant retroactive immunity to telephone companies accused of unlawfully opening their networks to government spies, key congressional Democrats said on Wednesday. In a five-page statement (PDF), U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and 18 Democrats on that panel contended the Bush administration has “not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity.” Skepticism about the Bush administration’s once-secret eavesdropping program is nothing new for the Democrats who signed onto the statement. The key difference here is that they say their latest conclusions are based on a series of classified reports and briefings to which many of them only recently had access. “Our review of classified documents has reinforced serious concerns about the potential illegality of the administration’s actions in authorizing and carrying out its warrantless surveillance program,” they wrote.

Now que Dubya squawking on about how we’re less safe because he can’t pardon AT&T and others from breaking the law and ignoring our constitutional rights. Big Business meet Big Brother.