Left to chance

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.

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.“

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.

During a hearing to review the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, Congress was told by intelligence official Donald Kerr that, “…it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people’s private communications and financial information.” Right, because we all know what a great job businesses are doing keeping our data safe! It is unacceptable for an official to declare that our rights need to be usurped and then have us rely on businesses to keep our records safe; they’ve been failing to do that for years, why would there be any difference now? In fact, if Mr. Kerr’s plan went through, these companies would be bigger targets for exploitation as they’d hold a bigger payout for would be attackers. Come on, no more ‘give up your rights to survive’ rhetoric, we’ve had enough.  There’s more good coverage on this at Wired.