Surveillance Update

Several things occurred within the past few days on the privacy/surveillance frontier. First, the EU Parliament decision we mentioned yesterday is being widely reported as an assault on privacy (the European press barely mentions the spam angle we covered yesterday). As far as I can tell, this decision will loosen the EU's protections against surveillance, but does not implement any spying itself - national governments are free to NOT spy on their citizens, in the (perhaps unlikely) event that they don't want to do so. In the U.S., the FBI will be increasing their general surveillance - that is, they'll be doing more surveillance unrelated to any suspected crime, using commercial databases, etc. We can expect the Bureau to be used for more overtly political uses in the future - spying on the not-in-power political parties is no longer prohibited and will, therefore, occur. The NYT has an interesting analysis. Finally, the Washington Post reports that banks will be creating a massive financial database/blacklist of terrorists, wife-beaters, anti-globalization protesters, etc.

Comments

Interesting timing

[SweenyTod]

I just got an email from the EFA, Australia's version of the EFF. They're saying that the Australian government is about to pass a bill that would allow much greater electronic surveillance. Their brief says:

Proposed changes to the Telecommunications Interception Act (C'th) would give government agencies (not only police forces) powers to intercept and read email, voice mail and SMS messages, without an interception warrant (as is presently required). Furthermore, agencies that are not allowed to obtain and use interception warrants (like the Taxation Office, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Immigration Department, etc) would gain the power to intercept and read private communications. Communications made using new technologies would have less privacy protection than a telephone call.

The full EFA briefing is found here, and I sure as heck don't like the idea of it.

Re:Typical Michael...Time for Him to Go

[Irvu]

How about some historical examples to bolster Michael's claim.

What many of the hard-core groups such as the ACLU and the EFF fear is a return to the days of COINTELPRO when the FBI (with the cooperation of the CIA) used it's vast powers to spy on Americans. And to discredit any political group outside of the mainstream. One noteable target was Dr. Martin Luther King. To quote from the Church Commission's report:

"The FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau's disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King's home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter's telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King's close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King's hotel and motel rooms in an "attempt" to obtain information about the "private activities of King and his advisers" for use to "completely discredit" them. " [My Emphasis]

And:

The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find "friendly" news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King's hotel rooms.

The above quotes are from the final report of the Church Committee (see also Here), a congressional committee set up to investigate the FBI's abuses of power. Out of this investigation arose many of the restrictions that Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. are overturning. These changes and the arguments for them have received opposition from longtime FBI members:

"I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons..."

"Several prominent FBI alumni also blasted Ashcroft's cast-a-wide-net approach to the terrorism investigation, which led to the detention of some 1,200 people, only a dozen of them suspected of having any links with Al Qaeda. The mass arrests were part of a fundamental shift in the bureau's strategy. In the past, the FBI would identify suspected terrorists, move to forestall any immediate threat of violence, then watch the suspects in hopes of cracking an entire cell. Ashcroft's approach, the critics noted, might jeopardize the kinds of investigations that had prevented previous attacks. "We used good investigative techniques and lawful techniques," warned Reagan-era FBI director William Webster, "and we did it without all the suggestion that we are going to jump all over people's private lives."..."

The first is from a recent Memo by Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel for the FBI Coleen M. Rowley via Time Magazine. The Second is from a Mother Jones article on John Ashcroft here. Note that the Mother Jones article (which discusses these changes) is several months old.

This is what people (quite rightly) fear and what we should be striving against. This is what Prompted Emmanuel Goldstein (editor of 2600) to devote his editorial in the most recent issue to a call to arms against such governance. This is a serious issue and the note that Michael Struck was just right. The FBI stated that carnivore will never collect the wrong information Yet we have admissions of the opposite (see here). In the light of all of this, can you really say that he is wrong?

As always you can contact the ACLU for more.

For some fun side-reading see:

• Amnesty International's 2002 report on the U.S.A.
• NYC Indymedia
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• And, The Register

Irvu.