Implementing Domestic Surveillance

From the Federation of American Scientists' "Secrecy News" e-newsletter:

IMPLEMENTING DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCEUpon lawful request and for a thousand dollars, Comcast, one of thenation's leading telecommunications companies, will intercept itscustomers' communications under the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct.The cost for performing any FISA surveillance "requiring deployment ofan intercept device" is $1,000.00 for the "initial start-up fee(including the first month of intercept service)," according to a newlydisclosed Comcast Handbook for Law Enforcement.Thereafter, the surveillance fee goes down to "$750.00 per month foreach subsequent month in which the original [FISA] order or anyextensions of the original order are active."With respect to surveillance policy, the Comcast manual hews closely tothe letter of the law, as one would hope and expect."If your [FISA intercept] request pertains to individuals outside theU.S., please be sure you have complied with all the requirements in 50U.S.C. sections 105A and/or 105B," the manual says, referring toprovisions of the Protect America Act that was enacted last month. "Requests such as these can not be honored after one year and must bedated prior to February 5, 2008, unless extended by Congress."Comcast will also comply with disclosure demands presented in the formof National Security Letters. However, the manual says, "Attentionmust be paid to the various court proceedings in which the legal statusof such requests is at issue."In short, "Comcast will assist law enforcement agencies in theirinvestigations while protecting subscriber privacy as required by lawand applicable privacy policies."At the same time, "Comcast reserves the right to respond or object to,or seek clarification of, any legal requests and treat legal requestsfor subscriber information in any manner consistent with applicablelaw."

A copy of the manual was obtained by Secrecy News.See "Comcast Cable Law Enforcement Handbook," September 2007: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/docs/handbook.pdf'

The role of telecommunications companies in intelligence surveillanceis under increased scrutiny as the Bush Administration seeks to shieldthe companies from any liability associated with their cooperation inwhat may be illegal warrantless surveillance.

Also, there are new indications that the unauthorized warrantlesssurveillance program pre-dated 9/11. The Rocky Mountain News, theWashington Post, and others reported allegations that the governmentmay have penalized Qwest Communications for refusing to participate ina pre-9/11 National Security Agency surveillance program that thecompany believed might be illegal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html

The Washington Post editorialized yesterday that the telecommunicationscompanies should indeed be immunized against liability, as the Bush Administration desires. Even though it is not known exactly what thecompanies did, the Post said, they "seem to us to have been acting aspatriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301069.html

Writing in Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald disputed that view, arguing thatpatriotism lies in compliance with the law, not in mere obedience toexecutive authority.http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/14/rule_of_law/index.html

Quote of the Day

From the platform of the Swiss People's Party:

La culture est ce à quoi les hommes aspirent et ce qu’ils créent pour réaliser des valeurs spirituelles et intellectuelles. Elle ne peut être imposée par l’Etat.

Roughly translated (forgive my weak skills):

Culture is that to which humans aspire and that which they create to realize spiritual and intellectual values. It cannot be imposed upon by the State.

There will be plenty more quotes from the People's Party.

The New National I.D.

With the "Real ID Rebellion" in full swing (so much so that the debate has largely died down), it is interesting to watch how politicians are trying to win public approval for a national ID by arguing for a special "card" for immigrants.

Regardless of one's position on the immigration issue, we ought to take pause to consider the dangers of profiling a minority for purposes of distributing federally-controlled cards. We also must consider the unintended consequences for those who belong to targeted groups but are in the country legally.

Rep. Frank Lucas (Oklahoma District 3) advocated this type of I.D. card in at least one townhall meeting last spring. In response, I contacted his office to clarify his stance on the issue. I was cleaning out the ODFP email account today and found a great example of responsive politics at work: I sent my last message to Lucas' office on May 9th and still have received no response. I post below the email conversation in full.


Date:
Wed, 9 May 2007 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:
hammerm@odfp.org View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject:
RE: Lucas stance on immigration
To:
"Perry, Craig"

Hi Mr. Perry,

No worries on the delay. My specific interest was on what specific proposals Mr. Lucas supports concerning stricter standards for driver's licenses and Social Security card access. I am happy to call, but in my past contact with congressional offices I have generally found that policy statements are often available in written form. Nonetheless, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you.

Thank you for being in touch,
Mike

"Perry, Craig" wrote:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Are there specific questions that you have concerning these issues? My direct line is 202-226-4695 if that would be more convenient.






__________________________________
Craig Perry
Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Frank D. Lucas (OK-03)
2311 Rayburn Building
p. (202) 225-5565
f. (202) 225-8698


From: hammerm@odfp.org [mailto:hammerm@odfp.org] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:19 PMTo: Perry, CraigSubject: Lucas stance on immigration

Dear Mr. Perry,

I am a resident of Stillwater , which is also where my organization is based. I have been reading in the papers about Mr. Lucas' position on immigration reform, especially as concerns stricter standards for keeping driver's licenses and Social Security cards out of the hands of illegal immigrants. I am interested in learning more about his specific proposals on this issue. Your office's main switchboard told me you were the person who deals with this issue.

Thank you very sincerely for your help,
Mike

Some things socialism just can't buy...

For those who think socialized medicine will answer America's healthcare ills:

"Name that drug -- many patients can't" (AP/Yahoo News): http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071011/us_nm/medication_errors_dc

Our only way forward as a nation is to get people more involved in their own care and to start thinking of being a "patient" more like being a "consumer."

OSU fires employee for explicit files and email

Full text HERE.

OSU had been detecting various types of illicit internet use for quite some time and sent out a threatening employee newsletter about how employees can expect no right to privacy at work. This firing is one of hundreds of thousands of cases that cause us to reconsider the boundaries of personal invasion at the work place.

Most employers with massive computer networks use the same type of network monitoring as OSU: a network monitor (kind of like in the Matrix) that can see all network activity in real time. I've always wondered, if they didn't want people downloading porn at work, why they don't just block those sites. OSU had already blocked peer-to-peer file transfer sites (e.g., the old Napster).

Great read on the subject of privacy at work: The Unwanted Gaze, by Jeffrey Rosen

The Death of Liberty By a Thousand Fingerprints

There's nothing like having a society that justifies everything "for the children". In this case, it's an overeager food service manager wanting to make sure students have enough time to eat. The solution? An expensive biometric system with which kids pay for lunch, naturally:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1665119,00.html

Apparently schools have used this system in other ways in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Best/worst line in the article:
"Now Tom McCraley, the 760-student school district's superintendent, says that before considering finger scanning, 'I'd want to make sure parents had a full understanding about it.'"

It's the same old line, time and again: If people just understood [fill in the privacy invasion], then suddenly they'd be OK with it. What's so hard about the idea that parents don't want their children tracked, scanned, monitored, and controlled by other people? Before Tom McCraley or any other superintendents take up their posts on the taxpayer doll, I'd want to make sure they have a full understanding about privacy rights and parental choice.

Personally, I think this is a great case study in how one error leads to another. For example:

"Allen says the system has helped add at least 10 minutes to lunch periods that in some schools last just 20 minutes. "

My first thought about this article was: what's so hard about giving the students 10 extra minutes for lunch?

Are our rights going up in smoke?

Oklahoma State University recently announced that it will become a tobacco-free campus as of July 1, 2008, making it the first Big 12 University to carry that distinction.

The policy has become a heated source of debate about the nature and limit of rights. Opponents of the policy have talked about the "rights" of smokers. Advocates of the policy have talked about the dangers of secondhand smoke, pointing out that a person's rights do not allow them to harm the rights of another person.

As an opponent of the policy, I am forced to point out a few issues:

1. The policy deals ONLY with smoking and smokeless tobacco use at least 25 feet from the entrance to a building. In compliance with state law, no smoking is allowed in university buildings or within 25 feet of an entrance or air intake.
2. I have been making the argument that a person is far more likely, in the open air, to inhale toxins and carcinogens far worse than catching a whiff of a passing cloud of secondhand smoke. Now I can prove the claim HERE; compare this with the much-touted 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report which addresses the dangers of indoor secondhand smoke.
3. The real issue here, as it is with all issues pertaining to public health, the effort to create a zero-risk environment, even when this environment is paternalistically enforced. Nowhere is this paternalism more evident than with OSU banning smokeless tobacco -- a form of tobacco use that does harm only to the user.

Also present in the University's statements is the buzzword "wellness." The public health arguments take in this case a familiar shape:

a) You can't let your actions hurt others (because of secondhand smoke)
b) It's for the children (think of all the children and elderly that come on campus)
c) We want to create a culture of wellness (even if it means forcing you to do so), and the kicker:
d) We know what's best for you

What place is there in such a scheme for differences in value? Everyday people use products made in sweatshops, tested on animals, and harmful to others -- but because of a decades-long PR campaign, smoking suddenly has suddenly become an intolerable behavior.

The protection of the non-smoker's rights is, of course, important. The inconvenience of indoor secondhand smoke may have been forgiveable before the toxicity of the smoke had been established. But the protection of rights cuts both ways. There may be no "right to smoke"; but there is a right to be left alone unless your actions directly and seriously harm another person. As a society, we undertake actions everyday that are more harmful to others than a cigarette could ever be. To a degree, these harms are a risk of a free society. But under the growing public health regime, such harms are impermissible. Every authority is legitimate, to the public health warrior, in order to create a zero-risk society.

Please discuss.