Privacy and Civil Rights's topics - tribe.net

Law Seeks to Ban Misuse of Genetic Testing

Enrika — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:19:51 GMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16genes.html

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Reason #832 why Facebook is EVIL

Enrika — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:34:23 GMT

A Facebook friend of mine posted this four days ago:

"It might be a good idea to go into Settings | Privacy Settings | Profile and then click "Preview my Profile" - so that you can see how your profile looks to the general internet. With the new crappy privacy changes made a few days ago, Facebook made more things public by default. In general, pretty much everyone is showing more information than they were before in "Preview my Profile""

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 7 replies

Detroit Bomber Reignites "Naked-Body Scanner" Debate

Ed — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:39:37 GMT

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2240110/entry/4/

While the use of full-body scanners was banned last June as a "primary" means of airline screening, supporters of so-called "naked-body scanners" are mobilizing once again after a would-be bomber attempted to blow up an airplane with explosives hidden in his underwear. There are two main kinds of machines that Transportation Security Administration officials want to use, Wired says. Backscatter units and millimeter-wave sensor devices, which work through measuring different energy patterns, and ultimately produce a "detailed, 3-D image of the passenger that looks sort of like a photo negative." The TSA currently has 40 wave-sensor machines installed at 19 airports and has already ordered 150 backscatter units. It's unclear, however, to what extent the TSA will be able to use these machines. The technology has been lambasted by privacy groups as invasive and illegal, and as Glenn Thrush notes at Politico, the June 2009 amendment to ban scanners—named after Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz –"was backed by a nearly irresistible coalition of interest groups … with conservative libertarians joining liberals." The TSA has dismissed these concerns, calling the images "friendly enough to be posted in a preschool." While the scanners are wildly unpopular now, Thrush speculates that they could gain political traction as more people give in to the idea of swapping privacy for safety.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Privacy is for miscreants, according to Google CEO

carolyna — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:20:32 GMT

I hope you all saw this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/

Tor and other surveillance circumvention groups are all over this. This is why people should be wary of conducting any kind of business on Google docs or wave. Even your gmail contents are being harvested for information about you.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 15 replies

Overweight avatars for overweight people?

deborahp — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:34:44 GMT

Am I reading this correctly?

Microsoft filed a patent application so that it can create obese avatars for its Xbox 360 gamers iif the gamer is obese)? Where do those health records come from?

Microsoft patent: Hey fatty, how do you like your obese avatar?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/188744.asp

Are you a big, fat liar?

I assume there are far more overweight Xbox 360 gamers than there are obese Xbox Live avatars. Who would want to make their avatar – their virtual identity – accurate to their body weight in the real world?

According to a patent application, Microsoft wants to force-feed overweight gamers overweight avatars. By using people's health records to create physically accurate avatars, Microsoft apparently wants to encourage people to lose weight.

Here's the summary from Microsoft Research's patent application:

An avatar generator for a virtual environment reflects a physiological characteristic of the user, injecting a degree of reality into the capabilities or appearance. Thereby, many of the incentives of the real world are replicated in a virtual environment. Physiological data that reflect a degree of health of the real person can be linked to rewards of capabilities of a gaming avatar, an amount of time budgeted to play, or a visible indication. Thereby, people are encouraged to exercise. Physiological data that reflect the health and perhaps also mood also improve social interaction in virtual environments. People seeking to meet and become acquainted with particular types of people are not thwarted by the artificiality of avatars. The physiological data can be gleaned from a third party health data collection repository, a healthcare smart card, a real-time physiological sensor (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, peak flow, pedometer, etc.)

Naturally, the application has received a lot of attention after Slashdot posted it Friday.

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think Microsoft is overstepping its bounds? Would having a physically accurate avatar actually motivate you to lose weight?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 8 replies

tracking you through Google usage

lightplumes — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:42:38 GMT

Knowing how important the Google invites for Google wave, Google voice, Google goggles are for many tech oriented people, it got me to thinking on how Google could use the data they gather from the basic fact of who you invite.

I recently read an article in the New York Times regarding the study of friendships, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree and so on, and how they could track your health through your friends, who they were and how often you interacted with them. They were also finding correlations to many other facts regarding your life from that research. There was a great deal of debate as to whether you were attracted to friends who had your health issues or lack thereof, or whether the simple fact that you had healthy friends brought you into healthier habits. The research was significant in that they were seeing patterns that they felt were of use to insurance companies, and they voiced concerns as to how those facts would be used.

So keeping in mind that research is already being done on human interactions, and how they affect you and your life, what could Google be doing with the simple data they gather by just simply tracking who are the first wave of invites, second wave, etc. Facebook has been proved to be using data sets such as these for marketing, and it is a growing field. So what I want to know is if anyone has heard of what Google might be doing with the data they gather from those special invites, and correlating it with other data they have on you, such as search patterns and what you search for. Or is this a topic not yet brought to light?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

AU: URGENT Action Alert

Rocky — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:09:42 GMT

AU: URGENT Action Alert

"URGENT: The Senate will vote on the Nelson-Hatch amendment TOMORROW! Please take action NOW!

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the destructive Stupak-Pitts amendment thanks to the powerful influence of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bishops demanded a new ban on abortion coverage in any insurance plan participating in the new insurance "exchange," and the Church hierarchy even threatened to use its clout in Congress to derail the entire healthcare reform package unless its particular religious view was enshrined in the legislation.

Now, the Senate is poised to vote on an identical amendment proposed by Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and a number of co-sponsors. Please remind your Senators that this restrictive language is unacceptable. For those of us who believe deeply that religion and government must function separately, this is hese events are highly disturbing. As supporters of Americans United, you are well aware that the Constitution mandates a separation between church and state. Yet recently, the Catholic bishops have used their immense power to undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This is unacceptable, and your Senators need to hear from you. We simply cannot allow the interests of a politically powerful religious denomination to undermine the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans of all faiths and none. Your Senators will vote tomorrow -- so please share your views NOW!

Tell Your Senators to OPPOSE the Nelson-Hatch Amendment

--------------------

Keep Religious Doctrine Out of the Law

"A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the destructive Stupak-Pitts amendment thanks to the powerful influence of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bishops demanded a new ban on abortion coverage in any insurance plan participating in the new insurance "exchange," and the Church hierarchy even threatened to use its clout in Congress to derail the entire healthcare reform package unless its particular religious view was enshrined in the legislation.

Now, the Senate is poised to vote on an identical amendment proposed by Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and a number of co-sponsors. Please remind your Senators that this restrictive language is unacceptable. For those of us who believe deeply that religion and government must function separately, this is hese events are highly disturbing. As supporters of Americans United, you are well aware that the Constitution mandates a separation between church and state. Yet recently, the Catholic bishops have used their immense power to undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This is unacceptable, and your Senators need to hear from you. We simply cannot allow the interests of a politically powerful religious denomination to undermine the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans of all faiths and none. Your Senators will vote very soon -- so please share your views NOW! "

http://www.capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=14439586

* Join the Separation of church and state tribe
http://separationofchurchstate.tribe.net

;

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Sprint gives law enforcement customer GPS info 8 million times

deborahp — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:58:09 GMT

Man! This is a chilling read, especially his blog post on his blog, 'slight paranoia'.

(much more at the links)

slight paranoia

Security and privacy analysis by Christopher Soghoian
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html

Executive Summary

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' (GPS) location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. This massive disclosure of sensitive customer information was made possible due to the roll-out by Sprint of a new, special web portal for law enforcement officers.

The evidence documenting this surveillance program comes in the form of an audio recording of Sprint's Manager of Electronic Surveillance, who described it during a panel discussion at a wiretapping and interception industry conference, held in Washington DC in October of 2009.

It is unclear if Federal law enforcement agencies' extensive collection of geolocation data should have been disclosed to Congress pursuant to a 1999 law that requires the publication of certain surveillance statistics -- since the Department of Justice simply ignores the law, and has not provided the legally mandated reports to Congress since 2004.

==
More of Chris's work

Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/wiretap-prices/

* By Kim Zetter
* December 1, 2009

Want to know how much phone companies and internet service providers charge to funnel your private communications or records to U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies?

That’s the question muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed a few months ago. But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that, among other things, they would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Yahoo's price list for your info on cryptome

PaulaC — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:26:56 GMT

http://cryptome.org/0001/yahoo-cryptome.htm

5 December 2009

A hardcopy of the PDF Yahoo demand notice was received by Fedex on December 4, 2009.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:16:38 -0500
From: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]steptoe.com>
To: "John Young" <jya[at]pipeline.com>

Mr. Young,

A copyright notice is optional for any work created after March 1, 1989. Yahoo!'s document is in fact copyrighted. Cryptome's delay in removing the infringing material is not warranted.

Sincerely,

Mike Gershberg

_________

Subject: RE: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:32
From: "John Young" <jya[at]pipeline.com>
To: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]steptoe.com>

Dear Mr. Gershberg,

I cannot find at the Copyright Office a grant of copyright for the Yahoo spying document hosted on Cryptome. To assure readers Yahoo's copyright claim is valid and not another hoary bluff without substantiation so common under DMCA bombast please send a copy of the copyright grant for publication on Cryptome.

Until Yahoo provides proof of copyright, the document will remain available to the public for it provides information that is in the public interest about Yahoo's contradictory privacy policy and should remain a topic of public debate on ISP unacknowledged spying complicity with officials for lucrative fees.

Yahoo's letter via Steptoe and Johnson to the US Marshal's Service

http://cryptome.org/yahoo-price-list-letter.pdf [Via]

belaboring at length, rather fee-enhanced, its right to confidentiality about Yahoo's spying complicity guide has heightened suspicion that Yahoo's business profit has undermined its promised customer trust.

The information in the document which counters Yahoo's customer privacy policy suggests a clearing of the air is in order to assure customer reliance on Yahoo's published promises of trust. A rewrite of Yahoo's spying guide to replace the villainous one would be a positive step, advice of an unpaid, non-lawyerly independent panel could be sought to avoid the stigma associated with DMCA coercion.

Note: Yahoo's exclamation point is surely trademarked so omitted here.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome Administrator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:50:22 -0500
From: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]steptoe.com>
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

Mr. Young,

On behalf of our client, Yahoo! Inc., attached please find a notice of copyright infringement pursuant to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Best,

Mike Gershberg

<<http://cryptome.org/yahoo-demand.pdf>>

Mike Gershberg
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone (202) 429-6208
Fax (202) 261-0538
mgershberg[at]steptoe.com

__________

Subject: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:30
To: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]steptoe.com>
From: John Young jya[at]pipeline.com

Dear Mr. Gershberg,

The Yahoo document hosted on Cryptome was found on the Internet at a publicly accessible site.

There is no copyright notice on the document. Would you please provide substantiation that the document is copyrighted or otherwise protected by DMCA? Your letter does not provide more than assertion without evidence.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome Administrator

Mr. Gershberg,

P.S. I failed to send a rude finger to your colleague Stewart Baker for this:

http://tinyurl.com/yag9e73

Yet there's little anyone can do to stop people like Young. "You're protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It's hard to prosecute someone who uses public sources to pull together information -- even when that information clearly shouldn't be revealed," says Stewart Baker, a technology lawyer and former general counsel for the National Security Agency. "If the material is leaked to you, you can probably publish that too. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be a jerk."

John Young

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several parties have provided telco and ISP lawful interception (spying) guides, some with prices (more coming):

yahoo-spy.pdf Yahoo Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
cox-spy.pdf Cox Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
sbc-ameritech-spy.pdf SBC-Ameritech Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
sbc-lea-spy.pdf SBC Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
ameritech-spy.pdf Ameritech Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009

cingular-spy.pdf Cingular Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
cricket-spy.pdf Cricket Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
nextel-spy.pdf Nextel Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
pactel-spy.pdf Pacific Telesis Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009
gte-spy.pdf GTE Lawful Spying Guide December 2, 2009

READ THIS SITE, RAISE HELL WITH THE TELECOMMS BETRAYING THEIR CUSTOMERS!

http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html

8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight

Christopher Soghoian

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' (GPS) location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. This massive disclosure of sensitive customer information was made possible due to the roll-out by Sprint of a new, special web portal for law enforcement officers.

The evidence documenting this surveillance program comes in the form of an audio recording of Sprint's Manager of Electronic Surveillance, who described it during a panel discussion at a wiretapping and interception industry conference, held in Washington DC in October of 2009.

It is unclear if Federal law enforcement agencies' extensive collection of geolocation data should have been disclosed to Congress pursuant to a 1999 law that requires the publication of certain surveillance statistics -- since the Department of Justice simply ignores the law, and has not provided the legally mandated reports to Congress since 2004. [More]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

DEJA VU, see Ming Dynasty's WHITE FLEET, and wonder why PRC lets the USA invade and administer Bureau of 'Indian' Affairs, hahahaha, shazzle.

Bob — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:49:51 GMT

At a riot, with no lawyers but those Tim Daly inhales up his corporate butt, events are predictable.

Got Clint? His movies are hot prophecy, layered, artistically.

Got Stanford? Seen Josey Wales? FLYBOYS? Dogs named 'Bo?' Hounds named 'Mac?' Safety, FIRST?

No, you do NOT have SAFETY, FIRST, but hey, pull Rudy back from the ondeck circle, ONE TIME, or suck a Zep into the deck, ruthlessly demolishing the new house, of the Bronx bombed-out bombers, to be.

Yanked down, Stanford football is on the way, back upward, after Walsh's demise. Clint spans DeShaun Jackson, for 'DJvu,' in Dirty Harry, see also THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, where young Jeff Bridges spans all the engineer-student blonde buddies I had, at CAL, dressed in an old-style version of today's Key West Dude Shirt, which was an invitation, for a bullet strike.

Got WAR? The bad, old railroad is hauling cattle, meat, and ashes, all night and day.

Sure you do, WWII and a half. Got each other? Sure we have!

Check me out. I am an anti-punk media person, for reform of fascism, or deconstruction, of illegal persons and media, LIKE ISRAEL.

The NSA and CIA prevented the FBI from noting how the 911 terrorists were IN THE USA, ready to do dirt, known.

GET DEJA VU, or lose all.

I know THIS: The Ming Empire decommissioned its White Fleet, April 6, 1437.

They left an armorer with the UK, to share triangular arrowheads, in use since the 1st Emperor, with Elizabeth I.

Liz didn't pay very well, so off to France went the crossbow, also in service since Emperor I. But this caused a real stir, as in European War.

Isabella of Spain sent Columbus, who reported Chinese and a way to Cathay, pronto. But this explained why all the gunpowder, plus.

The European thieves took gold, land, and all the natives they could kill, and wonder why the Mayan Calendar is so like the I-Ching. Duh.

When that calendar is up, in 2012, look to get sued by PRC, since you rioters kept calling the natives, 'INDIANS,' while abusing them.

PRC suffers standing US invasion, since the CIA ran B-24 Liberators, from Tibet and Taiwan, inciting the Korean War and taking of Tibet.

Since Panmunjon talks stalled, PRC acquires US debt in bad faith, since Inchon and the retreat by the UN, to Parallel 38.

Natives in America and Chinese in Taiwan and PRC need to get to ME, to sue, if you need standing or an explanation, about class actions.

I support S142192 CSC, den.12/13/2006, with C07 01399 SBA, USDC Oakland, which must issue, on hearing, against bills of attainder and all illegal construction, anywhere!

So where are YOU? Do you shake-up, and SUE? Push it up, game on, shing-a-lingers.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Great news! Lori Drew case finally resolved

deborahp — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:52:39 GMT

This case really was a big deal, and very tragic. Lori Drew created a persona (a teenage boy) on MySpace, made friends with her daughter's ex-friend, flirted with the girl, and then 'dumped' her, telling her that the world would be better off without her. The girl then killed herself.

The prosecution didn't know what to charge her with, so they decided to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (essentially an anti-hacking statute). The essential argument was that since she violated MySpace's terms of use policy by using fake information to create the profile, she had violated a provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (unauthorized access).

Thankfully, the judge put the brakes on that legal theory. If the charges had held up, it could have meant that any time a person violates a terms of use policy on a web site, you'd be breaking the law. Doesn't mean I don't think Lori Drew is a poor excuse for a human being, but I'd like to see her charged with something more appropriate.

Orin Kerr made the following post, and he did a lot of pro bono work on the case. He included a link to the decision if anyone wants to read it.

Lori Drew Opinion Handed Down -- Judge Grants Motion To Dismiss on Vagueness Grounds
http://volokh.com/posts/1251601962.shtml

(excerpt from post)
The reasoning of the opinion is that whatever unauthorized access means, it cannot mean mere violation of Terms of Service without more. Such a reading of the statute would render the statute unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it would give the government almost unlimited power to prosecute any Internet user and wouldn't give citizens sufficient notice as to what of their Internet conduct was criminal. I'll probably have some more comments on the opinion soon, but for now I just wanted to post it so others could see it.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 11 replies

Civil Debate on Civil Liberties and Police Cameras

Ed — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:56:38 GMT

http://www.kcbs.com/pages/5714376.php?contentType=4&contentId=5085618

TIBURON, Calif. (KCBS) -- The town council unanimously approved a police program that will photograph the license plate of every vehicle entering and leaving town.

Police Chief Michael Cronin proposed what he called “the most inexpensive, cost efficient method” of tackling crime even before the slaying of Joan Rosenthal, the town’s first murder in four decades.

“We have an obligation to spend as few tax dollars as we can,” he said.

KCBS' Margie Shafer reports

The council vote on Wednesday came after a debate about the balance between privacy and public safety that stayed cordial despite the strong feelings of some residents.

“I am disgusted by this plan,” said Terry Graham. She and other residents who spoke at the meeting said the cameras would change the ambience of the tony town.

Cameras on Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive—the only roads in and out of town—will be positioned to capture only an image of the rear license plate. Cronin said records would be purged after 30 days.

“The safe guards are far stronger in smaller communities than they are in much larger ones or in entities like the state or federal government. If you have a problem with a Tiburon police officer and you call a council member, I’m going to have to provide an explanation within an hour,” he said.

The camera idea is not entirely new. Former Mayor Andrew Thompson proposed the cameras in the mid-90s.

Cronin expects to see the cameras installed within four to six months. The total cost could run as high as $197,000.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

DNA testing firm goes bankrupt - who gets the data?

deborahp — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:43:49 GMT

Yikes.

Data like this would likely be sold. In this case, the data is a bit more protected. However, I wouldn't be surprised later on to read that the subscriber data has been deanonymized.

DNA Testing Firm Goes Bankrupt; Who Gets the Data?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/dna/

* By Kim Zetter
* November 18, 2009

An Icelandic firm that offers private DNA testing to customers has filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., raising privacy concerns about the fate of customer DNA samples and records, according to the Times of London.

DeCODE Genetics, a genetics research firm, began offering personalized DNA testing through its deCODEme website two years ago. A customer mails in a sample taken from the inside of his cheek, and the service calculates the subject’s genetic risk for disease — cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart disease.

The company hasn’t disclosed how many clients signed up for its service, but provides a number of customer testimonials on its site, including Dorrit Mousaieff, Iceland’s first lady. The staff of the Martha Stewart show also got their DNA tested earlier this year by deCODE when the company’s founder, Dr. Kari Stefansson, was featured on the show.

DeCODE warned investors earlier this year that it was running out of money, and filed for bankruptcy in Delaware this week. Saga Investments, a U.S. venture capital firm, has already put in a bid to buy deCODE’s operations, including the deCODEme business, though the sale of the operations must still undergo a public auction.

The company told the Times that Saga would be bound by deCODE’s privacy agreements with customers, which prohibits the disclosure of customer data to third parties such as insurers, employers or doctors.

But privacy advocates are concerned that Saga, whose primary interest is bottom-line profits, will opt to sell subscriber data — possibly in an anonymized form to researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Academic researchers have shown that anonymized data can be correlated with other data to identify people.

Helen Wallace, of GeneWatch UK, told the Times that the issue illustrates how customers that provide data for one purpose can never be certain how it might be used.

“This clearly introduces a layer of uncertainty beyond what people expected when they signed up,” she told the Times. “People do need to double check what they are signing up to. These companies often use broad consent, and I worry whether people know what their data might be used for in the long term.”

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Is Facebook a Paradise for Scammers?

Ed — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:55:06 GMT

Every day tens of millions of people log on to Facebook, the popular social-network site, and spend time playing goofy online games. But watch out. Some people playing these games are getting fleeced by scammers, tricked into signing up for products and services they didn’t want.

...

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2009/11/06/is-facebook-a-paradise-for-scammers.aspx

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 36 replies

Amnesty International

marvindublin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:18:44 GMT

http://www.amnesty.org/

BOINK!!!

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Smelling fear

deborahp — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:08:38 GMT

So, are you a terrorist or are you just afraid to fly?

(more at link)
The smell of fear is real, say scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/03/fear-smell-pheromone
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 December 2008 17.59 GMT
James Randerson, Science correspondent

The smell of fear, one of the most terrible cliches of pulp fiction, is founded in fact, scientists claim today.

People can unconsciously detect whether someone is stressed or scared by smelling a chemical pheromone released in their sweat, according to researchers who have investigated the underarm secretions of petrified skydivers.

and

Device that 'smells' human fear could identify terrorists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6481635/Device-that-smells-human-fear-could-identify-terrorists.html
Published: 3:04PM GMT 01 Nov 2009
A device that 'smells' human fear is being developed by British scientists who hope it could be used to identify terrorists by detecting scents found in sweat.

The technology relies on recognising a pheromone - or scent signal - produced in sweat when a person is scared.

Researchers hope the ''fear detector'' will make it possible to identify individuals at check points who are up to no good.

Terrorists with murder in mind, drug smugglers, or criminals on the run are likely to be very fearful of being discovered.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

ACLU

marvindublin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:23:36 GMT

Is anyone a member? I got a thing in the mail today and am considering joining.

http://www.aclu.org/

Because freedom can't protect itself.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Free speech and the Internet

Ed — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:17:12 GMT

I put up site about free speech and the internet here. http://www.poweredbythemoon.org
More will be added in the next few months. It deal mostly with supreme court caselaw and free speech on the Internet.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

deborahp — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:04:10 GMT

The discussions exclude almost all civil liberties groups, and include mostly industry groups. It's hard to get a handle on what's really in the agreement. One thing that seems fairly certain, given all of the discussion about it, would be a provision allowing for a 'three strikes and you're off the internet' policy. France just enacted such a law, Britain is flirting with one, and Wired just posted this article today about the US.

(more at the link)
Copyright Treaty Is Policy Laundering at Its Finest
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/
* By David Kravets
* November 4, 2009

The blogosphere is abuzz over an apparently leaked document showing the United States trying to push its controversial DMCA-style notice-and-takedown process on the world. But since Threat Level already lives in the land of the DMCA, we’re more bothered by the fact that the U.S. proposal goes far beyond that 1998 law, and would require Congress to alter the DMCA in a manner even more hostile to consumers.

At issue is the internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being developed under a cloak of secrecy by dozens of countries.The leaked document is a three-page European Commission memo written by an unnamed EU official, which purports to summarizes a private briefing given in September by U.S. trade officials.

The language in the Sept. 30 memo shows the United States wants ISPs around the world to punish suspected, repeat downloaders with a system of “graduated response” — code for a three-strikes policy that results in the customer eventually being disconnected from the internet with the ISP alone deciding what constitutes infringement and fair use.

==

Older info in chron order

Secret ACTA treaty can't be shown to public, just 42 lawyers
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/these-42-people-are-shaping-us-internet-enforcement-policy.ars

As the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement rolls forward, it's clear that some kind of Internet "enforcement" will end up in the text; but what kind? Thirty-eight corporate lawyers and 4 public interest lawyers are the only ones with a say.
By Nate Anderson | Last updated October 15, 2009 9:37 AM CT

Newer info:

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
Michael Geist
Tuesday November 03, 2009

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotations continue in a few hours as Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of talks. The governments have posted the meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly focuses on the issue of Internet enforcement. The United States has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.

Boing Boing coverage

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Privacy v. First Amendment in WA state ballot process

deborahp — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:38:23 GMT

This definitely has ramifications far beyond Washington state.

(much more at the link)
Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html

By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: October 31, 2009

SEATTLE - At a time when voters in many states are using petitions to
qualify ballot measures on issues from gay rights to property rights, a
legal dispute over the identity of 138,000 petition signers here is raising
new questions about privacy, free speech and elections in the Internet age.
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Pages/R-71Information.aspx

On Tuesday, voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to
registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of
marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by
opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether
the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and
ultimately, circulated on the Web.

The United States Supreme Court weighed in last week, deciding to let stand
a lower court ruling that ordered Washington's secretary of state not to
disclose the names of the signers. The Supreme Court did not rule on the
merits of the issue, and it is unclear whether it will.

The case, legal experts say, could chart new territory well beyond
Washington State. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which had ordered the release of the signatures, said the case presented
"novel questions of whether referendum petition signatures are protected
speech under the First Amendment."
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/decision%20DOE.pdf

Some advocates for releasing the names who support the expansion of the
state's domestic partnership rights say they want to post the names of
petition signers as a check against fraud but also to encourage potentially
"uncomfortable" conversations with the people who signed the petitions.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 16 replies

Former employers

carolyna — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:17:09 GMT

I've been told I am required to tell my soon-to-be former employer who I'll be working for next. Is that enforceable?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 32 replies

Message from the mod on personal attacks, this tribe's membership, and more

deborahp — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:32:48 GMT

This tribe is for discussing issues that we face today concerning our privacy and civil liberties. This tribe is not a forum for personally attacking individual tribe members. Attacking people like this does not foster discussion, it makes people feel uncomfortable (particularly the person being attacked!), and in general drives discussion away from the issues at hand. Most importantly, personal attacks are not something I'm going to tolerate in this tribe, by anyone. I'm now up to speed on what's gone on in the past between a few members of this tribe, and I'm of the opinion that the fairest option is to handle any situations on a going forward basis. And I hope I'm making myself clear on this point -- no personal attacks, no threatening behavior, no veiled attacks, no stalking. If I get any complaints about such behavior, the perpetrator is out of here. The issues are charged enough without personal attacks thrown in - I want people to feel like they can discuss civil liberties issues without being attacked in this way. Attack weaknesses in the person's argument, not the person.

As we know, our constitutional rights can be asserted against the government, not corporations (absent a statute or case law), but I think most of us feel that we should try to incorporate the ideals of free speech and other rights into the social networks where we spend our time. This doesn't mean that those rights and ideals trump everything; nothing is absolute - which is why I don't have a problem removing anyone who attacks others here. Your free speech rights end when you start the personal attacks.

Finally, I just want to say that privacy, the First Amendment, and online civil rights are the areas where I spend almost all of my working hours; so it's no surprise that I'd spend my time on Tribe talking about these issues. I think they're hugely important, and hopefully you all do too, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So let's discuss those topics. In this tribe, any opinion by anyone on the issues is welcome. Discussions are best when opinions from all sides are heard.

Now you know where I stand. I'm open to suggestions....

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Criminalizing Anime

AlohaSteven — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:49:02 GMT

In the article "Legislators look to expand Alaska's child pornography law - CARTOON: Move to criminalize anime, however, worries some free speech advocates" ( http://www.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/970371.html ) various points for and against this proposed law are raised.

Seems problematic in several different ways, yet also almost certain to pass given the current character of Alaska. Does anyone know of similar legislation elsewhere and whether or not in other states the effect of such laws has been more the actual protection of children from harm or the abridgment of civil rights vis a vis freedom of speech?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 7 replies

TSA screening of Greyhound bus passengers airport style

deborahp — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:22:15 GMT

No terrorists were found, only a handful of criminals.

Do we need this kind of screening on buses and trains?

Greyhound bus passengers get screened, pat down in special TSA operation
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-bk-orange-bus-tsa,0,57883.story

Susan Jacobson Sentinel Staff Writer

10:02 p.m. EDT, October 22, 2009

Bryce Williams wasn't expecting to walk through a metal detector or have his bags screened for explosives at the Greyhound bus terminal near downtown Orlando.

But Williams and 689 other passengers went through tougher-than-normal security procedures Thursday as part of a random check coordinated by the U.S.

Transportation Security Administration.

The idea is to keep off guard terrorists and others who mean harm, thereby improving safety for passengers and workers. There was no specific threat to the bus station on John Young Parkway south of Colonial Drive.

Although the TSA is best known for its agents at airports, the agency's Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR, teams stage periodic operations at bus and train stations, ports and other transportation centers. They began work in December 2006.

Thursday's daylong event was the first at a Greyhound station in Florida, said John Daly, TSA security director for the Orlando region.

Ashley Hartman, 23, arrived in the late afternoon from Tampa and was planning to transfer in Orlando to a bus bound for her home in Delaware. She told a security agent about the stun gun in her book bag that she carries for protection, and officials at the terminal helped her ship it home; stun guns are prohibited on buses, a TSA spokeswoman said.

"I think they have to have that with everything that's going on after 9-11," said Hartman, who was on her way home from a seasonal job running carnival games.

Normally, two security agents are on duty at the bus terminal, said Emma J. Gray, Greyhound district manager. They use a hand-held metal detector to scan people and also inspect luggage by hand, she said.

On Thursday, 50 officials from agencies including TSA, Orlando police, the Orange County Sheriff's Office, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection patted down passengers. Behavior and explosives experts and dogs trained to sniff out bombs and drugs also were used.

Everyone who walked into the terminal went through a metal detector like those at airports, and baggage was screened for explosives.

Five people were arrested on illegal-immigration charges, and one person was picked up on a local warrant. Glass bottles, knives, a bullet and the stun gun were found.

Michael Neal, 66, of Nottingham, England, was forced to remove a box cutter from his carry-on bag and place it in his checked luggage. He said he uses it to peel fruit, and he didn't mind the slight inconvenience.

"No problem," said the retired butcher, who is traveling around the U.S. on vacation. "It's for your own safety, really . "

But Williams, 49, and his son, Brice Williams, 20, were on their way to Minneapolis and weren't happy with the high level of security, particularly after they were forced to shift some tools from a carry-on bag to checked luggage.

Father and son said they skipped the airport because of the security hassles. Now, they're rethinking their choice.

"I'm driving from now on," Bryce Williams said.

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Social network activism and the future of civil liberties

jon_near_seattle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:03:30 GMT

I've got a post up on The Seminal and Pam’s House Blend, highlighting the opportunity to broaden and recharge the civil liberties community. The thesis is that Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Care2, OFA and other social network sites:

* provide a way to engage with Millennials and other diverse groups of people who care a lot about the Patriot Act -- but are not currently involved with civil liberties activism.
* make it easy for people to let their politicians know their feelings -- and recruit their friends in the process.
* allow civil liberties organizations to get beyond the media blackout and provide accurate information to everybody.
* complement in-person local campaigns like People's Campaign for the Constitution's local ordinances and good ol' fashioned letters-to-the-editor

The last section of the post has some suggested next steps. There's also some cool graphics too. Please check it out.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13833/social-network-activism-and-the-future-of-civil-liberties
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/11790

jon

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

White House opens Web site coding to public

mystubenmyspec — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:15:17 GMT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33463174/ns/technology_and_science-internet/

Smart move or does this open up privacy and security issues?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

Privacy and social networks

deborahp — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:28:10 GMT

Last Friday I went to a one day conference on social networking: Social Networks: Friends or Foes?
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/socialnetworking/schedule.htm The mp3s of the panels are now up.

The conference was geared towards lawyers, but don't let that put you off. I think it is really accessible for non-lawyers, and the privacy issues are relevant to everyone.

The panel called "Are You Really My Friend? The Law and Ethics of Covert or Deceptive Data-Gathering" was particularly interesting, I thought. One of the panelists took the position that status updates on Facebook and Twitter should be sealed off and not discoverable (as in an attorney trying to gather information in the discovery process shouldn't be able to get at that information). He described status updates as like 'passing conversations in the hall', kind of like how Bruce Schneier describes them as 'ephemeral conversations'. They're more private simply because they often are made without thinking and can be very revealing.

In other panels:

The Facebook general counsel was interesting - he's begging for people to sue Facebook over privacy issues, particularly on the question 'what is content?' so that he can have a ruling and know where the bright line law is. This is a good question for any social network....

Jennifer Granick (who worked on the defense for Lori Drew) discussed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and how it applies to transactional data, not content. In other words, data that shows where you were on a social network, who's profile you looked at (and how long you spent looking at it), etc.

There was also a lot of discussion about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - the Act that Lori Drew was charged with violating. The argument was essentially that she exceeded what she was authorized to do under MySpace's terms and conditions, and in so doing, violated that Act. Never mind that the Act was designed to prosecute hackers. One of the panelists at the conference thinks that the Lori Drew case is only the beginning of those kinds of cases. He's hoping that the courts narrow the terms of the statute...

Check out the mp3s if you have the time and interest. They're good. :)

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 8 replies

Teachers Union blocks emails

mystubenmyspec — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:37:50 GMT

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1284162.html

BY PATRICIA MAZZEI
pmazzei@MiamiHerald.com
The Broward Teachers Union accused the school district Thursday of intercepting hundreds of e-mails sent by school employees to School Board members since March -- without board members' knowledge.

Instead of being delivered to board members' inboxes, the e-mails -- about teacher raises, use of federal stimulus money and employee contract negotiations -- went to a ``quarantined folder'' in an e-mail server, the union says.

BTU lawyers sent Board Attorney Edward Marko and Board Chairwoman Maureen Dinnen a cease and desist letter Thursday threatening legal action if e-mail blocking is not stopped by Oct. 26. The letter says each blocked e-mail is a violation of the board member's and the sender's constitutional rights under U.S. and Florida laws.

The accusation comes at a time when the district faces increased scrutiny after last month's arrest of board member Beverly Gallagher in a federal corruption sting. Board members have admitted the scandal has cost some of the public's faith in the district.

``Considering everything that has been happening recently with Broward schools, and now this, it's no wonder voters and taxpayers are losing trust in our district's leaders,'' BTU President Pat Santeramo said in a statement. ``District officials appear willing to break whatever laws necessary to keep their house of cards standing, but it's falling all around them nonetheless.''

The school district did not immediately comment about the issue, though a spokesman said officials were working on a response.

BTU, with help from lawyers from the national American Federation of Teachers, began investigating in March after two board members said they did not receive hundreds of messages asking to increase teacher salaries.

The union says the district also intercepted e-mails from BTU stewards in April asking the federal stimulus dollars be used to save jobs. E-mails about contract negotiations in August were also blocked, according to BTU.

Thursday's letter says BTU is considering legal action against the School Board's technology use policy, which says use of electronic services ``shall be properly monitored, and to the extent reasonably possible, users of school sponsored telecommunication services and networks shall be protected from harassment or unsafe, unwanted, or unsolicited contact.''

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 6 replies

Security boss calls for end to net anonymity -- Kaspersky's online police state

carolyna — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:01:01 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/

By Dan Goodin in San Francisco

Posted in Security, 16th October 2009 20:06 GMT

The CEO of Russia's No. 1 anti-virus package has said that the internet's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity, calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world.

The comments by Eugene Kaspersky, who is also the founder of Kaspersky Lab, came during an interview this week with Vivian Yeo of ZDNet Asia. In it, he proposed the formation of an internet police body that would require users everywhere to be uniquely identified.

"Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport," he was quoted as saying. "The internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way."

Kaspersky, whose comments are raising the eyebrows of some civil liberties advocates, went on to say such a system shouldn't be voluntary.

"I'd like to change the design of the internet by introducing regulation - internet passports, internet police and international agreement - about following internet standards," he continued. "And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off."

He rejected the notion that internet protocol numbers were sufficient for tracking a user, arguing they are too easy to come by.

"You're not sure who exactly has the connection," he explained. "Even if the IP address is traced to an internet cafe, they will not know who the customer or person is behind the attacks. Think about cars - you have plates on cars, but you also have driver licenses."

Kaspersky was traveling on Friday and not available to be interviewed for this article. A company spokeswoman declined to comment.

Kaspersky admitted such a system would be hard to put in place because of the cost and difficulty of reaching international agreements. But remarkably, his interview transcript spends no time contemplating the inevitable downsides that would come in a world where internet anonymity is a thing of the past.

"You could make the same argument about the offline world," said Matt Zimmerman, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "You know, every purchase you make should be tracked, we should ban the use of cash, we should put cameras up everywhere because in that massive data collection something might be collected to help someone. But we think privacy is an important enough countervailing value that we should prevent that."

In Kaspersky's world, services such as Psiphon and The Onion Router (Tor) - which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable inhabiting.

And aside from the disturbing big-brother scenario, there are the problematic logistics of requiring every internet user anywhere in the world to connect using an internationally approved device that authenticates his unique identity. There's no telling how many innovations might be squashed under a system like that.

No doubt, the cybercriminals that Kaspersky has valiantly fought for more than a decade are only getting better at finding ways to exploit weaknesses in internet technologies increasingly at the heart of the way we shop, socialize and work. But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who sacrifice net liberty for incremental increases in security no doubt will get neither. ®

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 6 replies

Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference - call for participation

deborahp — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:32:02 GMT

This is the call that just went out today. If you want to participate - here's how. The conference will be in Silicon Valley, so for people in the Bay Area, it will be easy to get to.

You don't have to do a full on panel in order to participate. One very popular session we did last year involved a lot of 5 minute presentations from people who wanted to discuss a topic they were interested in. We'll do it again this year.

==

The 20th annual ACM Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference is pleased to announce our call for participation, soliciting proposals for sessions and topics at the conference as well as volunteers to help us organize and publicize it.

CFP is the leading policy conference exploring the impact of the Internet, computers and communications technologies on society. We focus on topics such as freedom of speech, privacy, digital rights and responsibilities, free culture and intellectual property, cybersecurity, electronic democracy, anonymity, and the future of technologies and their implications. This year’s conference theme is Computers, Freedom, and Privacy in the Networked Society, and we are especially interested in exploring the ways different kinds of networks — social, communication, information physical — interact with freedom and privacy.

If you’re interested in helping to shape the conference program, please read on for the Call for Proposals, which describes how you can suggest speakers, topics, workshops, tutorials, and panel sessions. Or if you prefer, a better-formatted version is available on our blog at http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=28#more-28

And every year, somewhat miraculously, a team of volunteers gets together to create an amazing program, organize the conference, and publicize it online and off. This year, we hope that you’ll join us. If you’d like to help out, please see our help wanted page at http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?page_id=41

Jon Pincus and Dorothy Glancy, co-chairs

..........................................................................................................

Call for Proposals

This year’s conference theme is Computers, Freedom, and Privacy in the Networked Society. We especially encourage proposals that focus on the ways different kinds of networks — social, communication, information physical — interact with freedom and privacy. We’re also looking for proposals that take advantage of this year’s location in Silicon Valley, include a diverse set of panelists and new voices, feature multiple perspectives on challenging issues, and look to the future by exploring cutting-edge technology, legal, and policy issues.

For more information on how to submit a proposal to CFP 2010, please see our page at http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?page_id=29

From these proposals (and discussions on the blog) the program committee assembles the final program. Don’t be surprised if your proposal undergoes some modifications; we frequently combines multiple proposals, or take a session topic and add some different speakers.

Our early-bird deadline is December 1; selected early proposals will be notified of acceptance by January 15.

The final deadline is January 31. Notifications will be sent by March 1.

The submission process can look very intimidating, so we’ve got some suggestions and example proposals up in our how-to page. Don’t worry too much if you get some of the details wrong; and if you’ve got any questions, please ask!

If you’ve any questions — or quick suggestions of speakers and topics — please leave them as comments on the blog at http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=28

Speaking of the blog, that’s another great way to participate in Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 2010. Please check http://cfp.org/wordpress/ for the latest!

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Be prepared to hand over your social networking passwords if you want a job working for the city of Bozeman

deborahp — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:15:45 GMT

You'll have to hand it over for a background check.

This is such a bad idea for reasons to numerous to count -- I'll list four.

1. identity theft, including credit card fraud (people tend to use the same passwords for social networking sites as well as for their online financial accounts).

2. violation of privacy rights - Montana has a right to privacy in their state constitution

3. violation of your friends' privacy rights - if you have a Facebook page, the city government can see everything about your friends that you can see.

4. security issues - and if a data breach should occur before you've had a chance to change your password after the background check? What then? And just password security, in general -- how many people have access to your log in and password? My skin crawls just thinking about it.

Bozeman City job requirement raises privacy concerns
http://montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10551414

Applying for a job with the City of Bozeman? You may be asked to provide more personal information than you expected.

That was the case for one person who applied for employment with the City. The anonymous viewer emailed the news station recently to express concern with a component of the city's background check policy, which states that to be considered for a job applicants must provide log-in information and passwords for social network sites in which they participate.

The requirement is included on a waiver statement applicants must sign, giving the City permission to conduct an investigation into the person's "background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records."

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.," the City form states. There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.

The requirement raises questions concerning applicants' privacy rights.

Article 2, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution reads "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

The City takes privacy rights very seriously, but this request balances those rights with the City's need to ensure employees will protect the public trust, according to city attorney Greg Sullivan.

"So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City," Sullivan said.

Another concern the applicant raised was that by providing the City with a Facebook user name and password the City not only has access to the applicant's page but also to the pages belonging to all of the applicant's Facebook "friends."

"You know, I can understand that concern. One thing that's important for folks to understand about what we look for is none of the things that the federal constitution lists as protected things, we don't use those. We're not putting out this broad brush stroke of trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process," Sullivan said.

When asked about creating a separate Bozeman Facebook page, then asking applicants to add the City as "friend," thus allowing the City to view the applicant's profile, Sullivan said officials could explore the option. This would limit the city to only view the page of the applicant.

No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 10 replies

Show you can balance or you can't fly?

deborahp — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:41:07 GMT

Oh, great. I'll never be able to fly again.

If you know me in real life, you know that my middle name is not "Grace". ;) You also know that it is not possible for me to sit or stand still for more than about 10 seconds.

Fit to fly? Balance Board tapped to detect shifty characters at airports
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/fit-to-fly-balance-board-tapped-to-detect-shifty-characters-at-airports/1361483

by Mike Smith
October 7 2:42 P.M.

Nervous flyers, beware: a Department of Homeland Security-funded project is investigating whether Wii Fit Balance Boards might be good ways to detect signs of tension or unease in airport security lines.

As somewhere over 20 million Wii Fit owners know, the Balance Board can detect your precise balance point, making it a perfect keep-fit tool -- but the Future Attribute Screening Technology project hopes detecting physiological signs -- including rapid shifts in balance -- will help identify passengers who may have hostile intentions.

"Researchers took a Wii balance board...and altered it to show how someone's weight shifts. Studies are now under way to determine whether there is a level of fidgeting that would suggest the need for secondary screening," CNN said.

The Balance Board is just one of a suite of sensors the Boston-based project is trialing; others include eye trackers and devices that record respiratory and heart rates. Researchers say their goal is to have a system ready for field tests in 2011.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

Smart Grid and privacy issues

deborahp — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:23 GMT

Yes, there are a lot of obvious issues, but a lot of unintended ones too.

There are a lot of comments at the end of the article that I didn't cut and paste.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/10/would-you-sign-up-for-a-discount-with-your-power-company-in-exchange-for-surrendering-control-of-your-thermostat-what-if-it.html#posts

What will talking power meters say about you?
Posted: Friday, October 9 2009 at 05:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan

Would you sign up for a discount with your power company in exchange for surrendering control of your thermostat? What if it means that, one day, your auto insurance company will know that you regularly arrive home on weekends at 2:15 a.m., just after the bars close?

Welcome to the complex world of the Smart Grid, which may very well pit environmental concerns against thorny privacy issues. If you think such debates are purely philosophical, you’re behind the times.

Maryland residents this month received fliers offering annual discounts of up to $100 in exchange for allowing their power company, Pepco, to occasionally shut off their air conditioning units during hot days, when demand is high. Pepco says consumers will hardly notice the change, and the two-way communication between utility and appliances will go a long way toward preventing brownouts.

Pepco’s discount plan is among the first signs that the futuristic “Smart Grid” has already arrived. Up to three-fourths of the homes in the United States are expected to be placed on the “Smart Grid” in the next decade, collecting and storing data on the habits of their residents by the petabyte. And while there’s no reason to believe Pepco or other utilities will share the data with outside firms, some experts are already asking the question: Will saving the planet mean inviting Big Brother into the home? Or at least, as Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently warned, will privacy concerns be the “Achilles’ heel” of the Smart Grid?

To advocates, the Smart Grid means appliances will work in electric harmony: Icemakers will operate only when the washing machine isn't, TVs will shut off when viewers leave the room, and so on. All of these gadgets will be wirelessly connected to the Internet. Households with solar panels will actually be able to sell their excess energy back to the power company. The result: lower power consumption, lower power bills, people and planet happier. That's the grand vision of the Smart Grid, a plan to upgrade power meters and electronic devices so they all constantly communicate.

Dark side of a bright idea
But others see a darker side. Utility companies, by gathering hundreds of billions of data points about us, could reconstruct much of our daily lives -- when we wake up, when we go home, when we go on vacation, perhaps even when we draw a hot bath. They might sell this information to marketing companies -- perhaps a travel agency will send brochures right when the family vacation is about to arrive. Law enforcement officials might use this information against us ("Where were you last night? Home watching TV? That's not what the power company says … ”). Divorce lawyers could subpoena the data ("You say you're a good parent, but your children are forced to sleep in 61-degree rooms. For shame ..."). A credit bureau or insurance company could penalize you because your energy use patterns are similar to those of other troublesome consumers. Or criminals could spy the data, then plan home burglaries with fine-tuned accuracy.

Space-aged visions of talking appliances may seem farfetched. They're not. At last month's GridWeek in Washington D.C., hundreds of companies vying for a market some say is as big as the Internet bragged about their new gadgets. Many are competing for the $4.5 billion set aside in the White House's stimulus package for investment in Smart Grid technologies. Already, some 8 million "Smart Meters," with the ability to conduct two-way communication with utility companies, have been installed in U.S. homes. There will be nearly 50 million by 2012. And while we race headlong into the brave new world of hair dryers that have IP addresses, privacy experts like Jules Polonetsky are wondering out loud if we've really thought through all the implications.

"The potential benefits of the Smart Grid are fabulous,” he said. "I just think that it's critical that sober and adequate thinking be done at this stage. We must do this right or we could hamper the rollout of the Smart Grid and you could have folks unwilling to participate. ... We are trying to help before it's too late."

Polonetsky, director of The Future of Privacy Forum, heads a small crowd of researchers who are asking important questions about the future of our futuristic power delivery plans.

"Knowing what’s going on in people’s homes … this strikes at some of our most core values," he said.

Eli Quinn, a research analyst at the Center for Energy and Environmental Security in Boulder, Colo., convinced that state’s public utility commission to hold hearings on the grid and privacy after he published two papers on the subject.

'Unintended consequences'
“The biggest privacy danger is it’s hard to wrap your head around the unintended consequences,” he said. “It’s not that different from the privacy risks of Facebook or other technologies … but it’s a lot more surprising to people what you can conclude from detailed electricity usage information.”

Larry Ponemon, a privacy auditor who runs The Ponemon Institute, said it's often hard to get consumers and regulators to focus on potential privacy issues ahead of time.

"Most people don't think about the issues until they become a victim of a privacy abuse," he said. "I see the privacy issues here as potentially serious. I'm not sure if I trust the utilities. It's hard to know how that information would be appended to other information and be used against consumers.”

As an example, he cited recent moves by banks to target customers who shop at stores that are frequented by consumers with low credit scores. Some are having the credit limits lowered merely because of where they shop -- a guilt-by-association model that infuriates some consumers. (It was first observed by msnbc.com a year ago.)

Privacy expert Alessandro Acquisti, who studies the intersection of economics and privacy at Carnegie Mellon University, said privacy issues routinely arise even when companies that collect data do so with all good intention. Many times, data that collected is harmless in isolation, but becomes troublesome when combined with other data, or examined by a third party for patterns.

As an example, in 2006, America Online posted what it thought were anonymized searches from its service. But observers quickly learned how to connect searches to individuals, creating a black eye for AOL and embarrassing hundreds of users.

More recently, students at MIT created a formula they say can predict which Facebook users might be gay, based on their public friend listings.

“This is the great challenge we face in the privacy realm,” he said. “Often when data is combined, you can draw inferences that are unexpected.”

'Tsunami of information'
Given the sheer avalanche of data that is going to be generated by Smart Meters that talk back to the grid, it’s easy to imagine unintended consequences. Utility companies sometimes collect only two meter readings per year on a customer. Smart meters can easily send two readings per hour.

"It could mean more data than you've ever collected," he said. “It’s a tsunami of information. … I don't know that companies appreciate how much data is coming."

According to a recent discussion by experts at Smart Grid Security, here’s a quick explanation of the sudden explosion in data. In the United Kingdom, for example, 44 million homes had been creating 88 million data entries per year. Under a new two-way, smart system, new meters would create 32 billion data entries. Pacific Gas & Electric of California says it plans to collect 170 megabytes of data per smart meter, per year. And if about 100 million meters are installed as expected in the United States by 2019, 100 petabytes (a million gigabytes) of data could be generated during the next 10 years.

Utility companies could adopt a European approach called "data minimalization," Ponemon said. Firms in Europe are legally bound to collect as little information as is necessary to complete a transaction, and they must delete the data as soon as it is no longer needed. That's unlikely, however.

"Once a company monetizes data it collects, even if the amount is small, it is very reluctant to give it up," he said. Many companies he audits have robust privacy policies but end up using information in ways that frustrate or cost consumers, he said. "They talk a good game, but I'm sure (utility companies) will find ways to use the data, and not necessarily to benefit people but to harm people."

Data creep will inevitably happen. Already, some consumers are getting statements that compare their use to neighbors' usage -- and "overusage" premium pricing isn't far behind. But what if the comparisons aren't fair? Most families would want to be compared to similar families -- how much power do three teen-ager daughter households use?

Cost savings, efficient allocation
Acquisti, who wears dual hats as both an economist and privacy expert, says consumers should not expect the worst from Smart Meters and the Smart Grid. In general, he says, more information is helpful to any economic system.

“I do not want people to be paranoid,” he said. “Information from the Smart Grid could lead to cost savings and more efficient allocation of resources.”

The key, he said, often lies in setting consumer expectations ahead of time. In numerous studies of consumer attitudes towards data collection, Acquisti has found what seems like contradictory attitudes, with users angry at some companies while pleased with others. But he thinks it boils down to transparency.

“If a consumer knows what is gathered and why, they can be comfortable with it. But when news comes out because of an investigative report in the news, they get angry. Even if it is the very same information used in the same way,” he said.

Polonetsky hopes utility companies have learned something from the missteps of Internet firms through the years. Early on, many consumers reflexively deleted Internet cookies in part because didn’t understand what they were, and how they helped the consumer experience. They also didn’t trust Web sites after a few embarrassing news stories.

But not all Web firms suffered that fate.

"Amazon is doing well, but they are tracking the books you buy. But they are also making suggestions,” he said. “I think people feel, ‘Hey, you are doing something for me.’ And that’s ok.”

The key, he said, will be the actions of utility companies early on in the Smart Grid upgrade process. They need to “recognize that they will be having complicated conversations with customers” and work to build trust now, before the digital makeover begins in earnest. After all, many consumers might prefer that their security alarm system be automatically armed if the lights on the house have been dark for two days, as long as someone explains the benefits to them.

"This is all coming very quickly and we don't have the history of how to understand whether people will or won't want these things," he said.

Already, complaints of high bills
Discounts, like the one offered to Maryland consumers, could certainly serve as the carrot that entices U.S. power users to sign up for smart meters, and agree to allow collection of data. But some consumers already feel new meters are being used as sticks instead of carrots.

When California’s Pacific Gas & Electric flipped the switch on smart meters earlier this year, a cascade of complaints followed. A host said their energy bills doubled the first month after the smart meters were installed. Complaints have been so vocal that the California state Legislature recently held a hearing about it. One consumer, Jane Hahn, said her August power bill soared 422 percent, to $735, over the same month a year ago.

That's hardly the way to win over a potentially skeptical population. Still, someone will have to pay for installation of two-way electronic sensors in the system. The data mining and marketing opportunities may prove too tempting, since they could fund much of the upgrade. But doing so could create a backlash that could place the entire upgrade in peril.

“Will the folks involved learn from the mistakes of the past?” Polonetsky said. “Will the grid end up with a marketing model, with unease and distrust, and complaints that ‘I didn’t even know you had this data.’ Or will it be ‘How can I respect your data’ and will this model evolve as the best of Web 2.0 … giving people control of their information and great new tools? ”

* * *

To see a sample working smart meter, including dollars spent per hour and hour of highest consumption, click here.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

TSA security: Meauring heart rate, blood pressure, etc., at the airport

deborahp — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:51:45 GMT

I wonder how this would play with HIPAA rules? Would medical records become available to the TSA? I don't know the answer to this question...

And it's Jay Stanley, not Joe Stanley. I hate it when reporters can't even get names right. >: |

Will airports screen for body signals? Researchers hope so
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/06/security.screening/index.html

By Pam Benson
CNN

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The days of being able to walk through airport security checkpoints while wearing shoes and a jacket could return if an experimental program proves successful, some Department of Homeland Security officials say.

The Homeland Security-funded project is Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST. Instead of focusing on whether you have hidden explosives or whether you're carrying a weapon, sensors and cameras located at security checkpoints would measure the natural signals coming from your body -- your heart rate, breathing, eye movement, body temperature and fidgeting.

Those physiological signs, measured together, will indicate whether you might have the desire or intent to do harm, project manager Robert Burns said.

"There's been a large field of research that ties your physical reactions to your mental state, your emotional state. We're looking for those signals that your body gives off naturally," Burns said.

Burns said the technology will pick up cues that may not be observed by a human and help security personnel decide more quickly whether to send someone to secondary screening for questioning.

FAST could be used wherever there are special security concerns, including stadiums, convention centers, federal buildings, mass transit centers and airports.

Some critics question the viability of the project, saying it's pie-in-the-sky science fiction. Civil libertarians also charge it's an invasion of privacy.

Researchers demonstrated FAST to reporters last month at the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Boston.

Actors walked into a room, where the various sensors measured their responses to a series of questions from a screener. The questions included, "Is this the month of September?" and "Do you plan to detonate an explosive?" Their responses were noted on individual graphs that indicated whether their physiological cues fell within normal ranges.

It's taken about $20 million to develop the technology. All but one of the sensors is commercially available.

One is a thermal imaging device that measures the temperature of a face. A screener would look for temperature changes -- a possible stress response -- as a person is asked questions.

Another device, an eye tracker, follows a person's gaze, checks the amount of blinking and measures pupil dilation.

Two of the machines track heart and respiratory rates. They also measure the interval between heartbeats and how deeply one inhales.

And there is an improvised fidgeting monitor. Researchers took a Wii balance board -- a device people stand on to interact with certain Nintendo Wii video games -- and altered it to show how someone's weight shifts. Studies are now under way to determine whether there is a level of fidgeting that would suggest the need for secondary screening.

A checkpoint screener would not look at the results individually, but would consider them together when deciding whether someone should be sent for questioning, Burns said.

And a screener wouldn't be targeting just people with elevated levels.

"We're going to look for the elevation, but we're also going to look for the absence of signals, which is just as indicative of being something that has to be resolved," Burns said.

FAST researchers are encouraged by the results so far. One of the researchers, Daniel Martin, says as each succeeding study becomes more real, the program is "doing significantly better than chance."

Critics say that is not good enough.

"I haven't seen any research that shows that those measures from the autonomic nervous system ... measuring blood pressure, measuring breathing, measuring heat on the face, are at all related to intent," said Stephen Fienberg, professor of statistics and social sciences at Carnegie Mellon University.

Fienberg, who participated in a government study critical of the use of polygraphs, said he worries that a lot of money is being spent on a program that in the end will show "the emperor has no clothes."

Civil liberties groups maintain this screening technology is an invasion of privacy.

"Nobody has the right to look at my intimate bodily functions, my breathing, my perspiration rate, my heart rate, from afar," said Joe Stanley of the ACLU.

Stanley says government officials need to focus on what has worked in the past.

"They need to use old-fashioned, shoe-leather law enforcement investigative techniques, chase down known evidence, known suspects and get out there and do a good, competent basic job in investigating terrorist groups," he said.

Stanley added the notion that terrorists "can be picked out with this kind of pseudo technological approach ... is very naive."

Burns denied the project is a violation of privacy.

"We're looking at signals you give off naturally. We're not asking for any personal information. We're not asking anything about you," he said.

Burns acknowledges the project has a long way to go, but he insists it is valid research that's headed in the right direction. He believes their theory is backed by "a vast plethora of research over the past 40 years."
advertisement

Researchers hope to have the project ready for field testing in 2011. Burns' goal is to have a system within five years that is "minimized and unobtrusive."

People would go through security quicker, Burns said, and "you may keep your shoes on, you don't need to take your jacket off and please keep your bottle of water."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 9 replies

The G20, Twitter, and the First Amendment

deborahp — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:30:28 GMT

We're moving in exactly the wrong direction.

Giving the First Amendment a Beating at the G-20
Submitted by MacRonin on October 6, 2009 - 3:23pm
http://www.privacydigest.com/2009/10/06/giving%20first%20amendment%20beating%20g20

Giving the First Amendment a Beating at the G-20: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

(Originally posted in Jurist.)

Law enforcement officials have, over the past decade, used gatherings of national and international leaders as license to suspend civil liberties. During the recent G-20 Summit, Pittsburgh proved to be no exception. The city was transformed into a police state where our most cherished freedoms, especially the freedom to dissent, were subject to the martial law-type tactics I witnessed behind the Iron Curtain.

While world leaders were quietly secluded behind closed doors, 8-foot-high steel and mesh fences lined most downtown streets. Six thousand police and National Guard troops manned checkpoints, roamed the streets in armored humvees, and were visible everywhere in large groups. In this militarized ghost town, neither common folk nor demonstrators ever got close to the dignitaries.

Before the Summit, local officials paid lip service to the First Amendment. But just as in Poland under martial law in the early 1980’s, where only carefully controlled demonstrations sanctioned by communist-party bosses were allowed, protesters who lacked political ties to the establishment in Pittsburgh last week were threatened, harassed, and outright prohibited from peacefully expressing their opposition to G-20 policies.

The gamesmanship began early. Initially resistant to allowing any demonstrations during the Summit, the City eventually relented and permitted several mainstream groups, including former Vice President Al Gore’s climate group, to hold events in a local park.

But when two less politically-connected groups, Codepink and Three Rivers Climate Convergence (3RCC), renewed their requests to use the same park, the City refused. The rich and powerful were welcome in Pittsburgh, but those with edgier critical messages were not.

A federal judge eventually ordered the City to issue permits to Codepink and 3RCC, ruling that no good reason existed for precluding them. Unfortunately, the mistreatment and harassment of 3RCC and other protesters didn’t end with the judge’s order.

Police vehicles blocked 3RCC’s educational and food buses, preventing them from going to the demonstration. City officials permitted the group to leave its tent, artwork, and literature in the park overnight, but would not allow anyone to stand guard- claiming that standing guard would constitute illegal camping. The next day everything was gone. In a moment of surprising candor, the City’s spokeswoman admitted to a local reporter that the Public Works department had confiscated 3RCC’s property. With all necessary props gone, the climate-justice demonstrations never materialized.

Despite this intensive scrutiny, which included dozens of warrantless raids on activists’ homes and meeting places and countless pretextual traffic stops, only one person was arrested prior to the Summit – for giving a nickname instead of her birth name.

In the eeriest parallel to my experiences in martial law Poland, on two consecutive evenings the police inexplicably deemed assemblies of people peacefully gathered in a large, grassy University of Pittsburgh plaza to be “unlawful” and ordered everyone to disperse immediately. Police used an “LRAD” (first-ever civilian use of a military sonic weapon that can cause permanent hearing loss), shot pepper spray into dormitory stairwells, and fired rubber bullets and beanbags at fleeing students and curiosity seekers.

When those assembled tried to follow dispersal orders, many ran into the nearly 1000 riot police that encircled the group. The 100-plus arrestees included many curious, non-participating Pitt students and a few journalists. In this police state, apparently, government-sanctioned assemblies are allowed, but spontaneous demonstrations or gatherings, even peaceful ones, are not.

During the Summit, as expected, a few out-of-town kids broke a dozen windows. Police presence at the crime scenes were minimal, primarily because just a few blocks away the massive manpower surge was suppressing the peaceful gathering at the University. If a few of those police officers had simply stood on street corners around the area, even that little damage would have been minimized, Officers who happened to be standing in front of a targeted coffee shop during the two-person rampage discouraged any vandalism.

Pittsburgh’s use of harassment, intimidation, trickery, and indiscriminate arrests against demonstrators was fairly typical of the recent handling of other large important gatherings at the hands of various groups of law enforcement officials. At times when the imperative to allow freedom of speech and assembly is greatest – when national and international leaders convene – we impose martial law. Surely a more balanced model that provides security and respects civil liberties is possible.

Read Original Article:(Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.)

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

A few good privacy blogs

deborahp — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:57:58 GMT

This has been floating around the privacy community on Twitter.

Some really good blogs here, 7 of 'em, in fact. :)

Guest Blog: 7 Excellent Privacy Blogs Worth Subscribing To
http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2009/09/7-excellent-privacy-blogs-worth-subscribing-to.html

I'm partial to Privacy International and Threat Level, myself.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official

PaulaC — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:36:50 GMT

Just in case this went under your radar:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/45495/franken-reads-4th-amendment-to-justice-department-official

"WASHINGTON — Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
Franken opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either. He’d also done research on the Patriot Act, he said, and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.

Today’s Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law adequately protects Americans’ civil liberties and Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time.

Daphne Eviatar is a law reporter for the Washington Independent."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

Another massive FBI data mining program

deborahp — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:49:54 GMT

These people never quit. Check out the list of records that the FBI has gathered.

Also, worth going to the site just to see the graphic...

Newly Declassified Files Detail Massive FBI Data-Mining Project
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/fbi-nsac/

* By Ryan Singel
* September 23, 2009

A fast-growing FBI data-mining system billed as a tool for hunting terrorists is being used in hacker and domestic criminal investigations, and now contains tens of thousands of records from private corporate databases, including car-rental companies, large hotel chains and at least one national department store, declassified documents obtained by Wired.com show.

Headquartered in Crystal City, Virginia, just outside Washington, the FBI’s National Security Branch Analysis Center (NSAC) maintains a hodgepodge of data sets packed with more than 1.5 billion government and private-sector records about citizens and foreigners, the documents show, bringing the government closer than ever to implementing the “Total Information Awareness” system first dreamed up by the Pentagon in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Such a system, if successful, would correlate data from scores of different sources to automatically identify terrorists and other threats before they could strike. The FBI is seeking to quadruple the known staff of the program.

But the proposal has long been criticized by privacy groups as ineffective and invasive. Critics say the new documents show that the government is proceeding with the plan in private, and without sufficient oversight.

“We have a situation where the government is spending fairly large sums of money to use an unproven technology that has a possibly of false positives that would subject innocent Americans to unnecessary scrutiny and impinge on their freedom,” said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Before the NSAC expands its mission, there must be strict oversight from Congress and the public.”

The FBI declined to comment on the program.

Among the data in its coffers, the NSAC houses more than 55,000 entries on customers of the Cendant Hotel chain, now known as Wyndham Worldwide, which includes Ramada Inn, Days Inn, Super 8, Howard Johnson and Hawthorn Suites. The entries are for hotel customers whose names matched those on a long list the FBI provided to the company. Like much of the data used by NSAC, the records were likely retained at the conclusion of an investigation, and added to NSAC for future data mining.

Another 730 records come from the rental car company Avis, which used to be owned by Cendant. Those records were derived from a one-time search of Avis’s database against the State Department’s old terrorist watch list. An additional 165 entries are credit card transaction histories from the Sears department store chain.

Wyndham Worldwide did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Sears declined comment.

Wired.com’s analysis of more than 800 pages of documents obtained under our Freedom of Information Act request show the FBI has been continuously expanding the NSAC system and its goals since 2004. By 2008, NSAC comprised 103 full-time employees and contractors, and the FBI was seeking budget approval for another 71 employees, plus more than $8 million for outside contractors to help analyze its growing pool of private and public data.

A long-term planning document from the same year shows the bureau ultimately wants to expand the center to 439 people.

As described in the documents, the system is both a meta-search engine — querying many data sources at once — and a tool that performs pattern and link analysis. The NSAC is an analytic Swiss army knife.

The FBI used the system to locate a suspected Al Qaeda operative with expertise in biological agents who was hiding out in Houston. And when law enforcement officials got information suggesting members of a Pakistani terrorist group had obtained jobs as Philadelphia taxi drivers, the NSAC was tapped to help the city’s police force run background checks on Philadelphia cabbies.

(A Jordanian-born Philly cab driver was convicted in 2008 for his part in a plot to attack the Fort Dix army base in New Jersey, but there’s no evidence of a connection between the investigations.)

And when the FBI lost track of terrorism suspects swept in the evacuation from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it created a standing order in the system to flag any activity by the missing targets.

Additionally, the FBI shared NSAC data with the Pentagon’s controversial Counter-Intelligence Field Activity office, a secretive domestic-spying unit which collected data on peace groups, including the Quakers, until it was shut down in 2008. But the FBI told lawmakers it would be careful in its interactions with that group.

Conventional criminal cases have also benefited. In a 2004 case against a telemarketing company called Gecko Communications, NSAC used its batch-searching capability to provide prosecutors with detailed information on 192,000 alleged victims of a credit scam.

The feds suspected that Gecko had promised to help the victims improve their credit scores, and then failed to produce results. NSAC automatically analyzed the victims’ credit records to prove their scores hadn’t improved, a task that took two days instead of the four-and-a-half years that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had expected to sink into the job. In December 2006, the owners and seven office managers at the company were sentenced to prison.

The NSAC was born as two separate systems designed to improve information-sharing between government agencies following the Sept. 11 attacks. The Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force database has been used to screen flight-school candidates and assist anti-terror investigations. The Investigative Data Warehouse is the more general system, and is the principal element now under expansion.

“The IDW objective was to create a data warehouse that uses certain data elements to provide a single-access repository for information related to issues beyond counterterrorism to include counterintelligence, criminal and cyber investigations,” stated a formerly secret fiscal year 2008 budget request document. “These missions will be refined and expanded as these capabilities are folded into the NSAC.”

When the bureau unified the systems under the NSAC banner in 2007, the move set off alarm bells with lawmakers, who thought it sounded a lot like the Pentagon’s widely-criticized Total Information Awareness project, which had sought to identify terrorist sleeper cells by linking up and searching through U.S. credit card, health and communication databases. The TIA program had moved into the shadows of the intelligence world after Congress voted to revoke most of its funding.

In 2007, Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the NSAC. No report has been made public yet. But the documents obtained by Wired.com show that the FBI has repeatedly downplayed the databases’s capabilities when addressing critics in Congress, while simultaneously talking up — in budget documents — the system’s power to spit out the names of newly suspicious persons.

The FBI deflected criticism from a House committee on June 29, 2007, by pointing out a major difference between the NSAC and the shuttered TIA program: The NSAC, the bureau said, is not as open-ended. “A mission is usually begun with a list of names or personal identifiers that have arisen during a threat assessment, preliminary or full investigation,” the unsigned response read. “Those people under investigation are then assessed to determine if they have any association with terrorism or foreign espionage.”

But a formerly secret 2008 funding justification document among the newly released documents suggests the FBI’s pre-crime intentions are much wider that the bureau acknowledged.

The NSAC will also pursue ‘pattern analysis’ as part of its service to the [National Security Branch]. ‘Pattern analysis’ queries take a predictive model or pattern of behavior and search for that pattern in data sets. The FBI’s efforts to define predictive models … should improve efforts to identify “sleeper cells.”

As an example, the FBI said its sophisticated data queries allowed it to identify 165 licensed helicopter pilots who came from countries of interest, and found that six of those had “derogatory” information about them in the NSAC computers. It sent the leads to FBI field agents in Los Angeles.

The FBI also has ambitious plans to expand its data set, the budget request shows. Among the items on its wish list is the database of the Airlines Reporting Corporation — a company that runs a backend system for travel agencies and airlines. A complete database would include billions of American’s itineraries, as well as the information they give to travel agencies, such as date of birth, credit card numbers, names of friends and family, e-mail addresses, meal preferences and health information.

So far, the company has given the FBI nearly 17,000 records, which are now part of NSAC. Spokesman Allan Mutén said the company gives the FBI records only when presented with a subpoena or a national security letter — which, he adds, has happened quite a bit. “Nine-eleven was a time and event that piqued the interest of the authorities in airline passenger data,” Mutén said.

The ever-growing size of the database concerns EFF’s Opsahl, who has pieced together the best picture of the FBI’s data mining system through other government FOIA requests.

Opsahl cites a October 2008 National Research Council paper that concluded that data mining is a dangerous and ineffective way to identify potential terrorists, which will inevitably generate false positives that subject innocent citizens to invasive scrutiny by their government.

At the same time, Opsahl admits the NSAC is not at the moment the Orwellian system that TIA would have been.

“This is too massive to be based on a particular query, but too narrow to reflect a policy that they are going to out and collect this kind of data systematically,” Opsahl said.

That could change if the FBI gets it hands on the data sources on its 2008 wish list. That list includes airline manifests sent to the Department of Homeland Security, the national Social Security number database, and the Postal Service’s change-of-address database. There are also 24 additional databases the FBI is seeking, but those names were blacked out in the released data.

Graphic: Wired.com/Dennis Crothers

From the side bar in the article:

The FBI’s Data-Mining Ore

Composed of government information, commercial databases and records acquired in criminal and terrorism probes, the FBI’s National Security Branch Analysis Center is too broad to be considered mission-focused, but still too patchy to be Orwellian. Here’s the data we know about.

• International travel records of citizens and foreigners

• Financial forms filed with the Treasury by banks and casinos

• 55,000 entries on customers of Wyndham Worldwide, which includes Ramada Inn, Days Inn, Super 8, Howard Johnson and Hawthorn Suites

• 730 records from rental-car company Avis

• 165 credit card transaction histories from Sears

• Nearly 200 million records transferred from private data brokers such Accurint, Acxiom and Choicepoint

• A reverse White Pages with 696 million names and addresses tied to U.S. phone numbers

• Log data on all calls made by federal prison inmates

• A list of all active pilots

• 500,000 names of suspected terrorists from the Unified Terrorist Watch List

• Nearly 3 million records on people cleared to drive hazardous materials on the nation’s highways

• Telephone records and wiretapped conversations captured by FBI investigations

• 17,000 traveler itineraries from the Airlines Reporting Corporation

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Wonder what happens to all the stuff the TSA takes from passengers?

deborahp — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:53:52 GMT

They sell it on eBay.

Interesting slip of the tongue from the author of the article. She refers to the items taken away from passengers as 'junk'. I wouldn't classify new power tools as 'junk'.

(more at link)
From carry-on to eBay: The journey of airport security booty
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/09/21/tsa.contraband.sale/index.html

By Stephanie Chen
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A 20-inch machete from Costa Rica. New power drills with the tags still hanging. A pile of brass knuckles and nunchucks. Tubs of golf clubs, baseball bats and 10-pound exercise weights.

These objects -- collected at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport security checkpoints -- are among millions of items confiscated by the Transportation Security Administration from travelers' carry-on bags each year.

After the U.S. government expanded the list of items prohibited on airplanes in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, air travelers have few options but to surrender their Swiss army knives, cake cutters or whatever banned loot lies in their carry-on bags.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Project Indect - Surveilling the entire European Union

deborahp — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:17:44 GMT

Wow. And what is 'abnormal behavior'? Talk about chilling effects!

EU funding 'Orwellian' artificial intelligence plan to monitor public for "abnormal behaviour"

(more at link)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

By Ian Johnston
Published: 9:08PM BST 19 Sep 2009

A five-year research programme, called Project Indect, aims to develop computer programmes which act as "agents" to monitor and process information from web sites, discussion forums, file servers, peer-to-peer networks and even individual computers.

Its main objectives include the "automatic detection of threats and abnormal behaviour or violence".

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

'Facebook Five' in Australia demand the right to complain about boss online

mystubenmyspec — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:37:03 GMT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32893562/ns/technology_and_science-security/

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

VoIP is definitely not private

carolyna — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:22:58 GMT

I didn't believe it was but interesting that it's actually spelled out in the contract:

"In the US and Europe, all players who offer VoIP services have provisions that allow governments to track these calls."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/IB-asks-govt-to-block-all-net-telephony-services/articleshow/5012734.cms#

NEW DELHI: The Intelligence Bureau has asked the communication ministry to block all internet telephony (VoIP) services to and from the country until the Department of Telecom (DoT) puts in place a mechanism to track such calls.

The IB is of the view that currently, India does not have the capabilities to track internet telephony calls — both domestic & international — and had asked the DoT to find an "early solution to this issue in the interest of national security".

"In the absence of Caller Line Identification (CLI) parameters of calls landing from abroad, it's next to impossible to identify the country of location of the caller. Moreover, of late a number of service providers in India have started providing VoIP solutions for making calls both domestics as well as foreign. The calls passing through the VoIP/IP route contain inadequate parameters rendering it impossible to trace the actual callers. As DoT had conveyed that it is not possible to mandate transmission of CLI from abroad, we had approached DoT to block such calls till a technical solution is found," the IB said in its communication to the DoT, a copy of which is with ET.

If DoT were to implement the IB directive, it will impact hundreds of thousands of consumers who use the internet to make extremely low cost calls to phones and free calls to computers across the globe. Telcos such as MTNL in Delhi and Mumbai and many leading ISPs offer internet telephony services.

In addition, any consumer with internet access can use services from hundreds of companies such as Skype, Google, Yahoo! and Window Live, amongst others.

According to telecom regulator Trai's latest performance indicators report, consumers over 130 million minutes of internet telephony in the January-March quarter 2009. This report also adds that 34 ISPs in India offer net telephony services in India legally.

Cyber security expert Vijay Mukhi said that IB should have issued such directions immediately after the 26/11 terror attacks. "The terrorists used net telephony as they were aware that India did not have the technological capabilities to do a live trace of such calls.

In the US and Europe, all players who offer VoIP services have provisions that allow governments to track these calls. Many of them have also installed equipment at their premises to monitor VoIP calls upon orders from governments," he added.

The IB communication to the DoT also addresses a host of other security related issues, including the presence of Chinese equipment vendors such as Huawei & ZTE providing equipment such as routers & switches to private operators and state-owned BSNL.

The IB has pointed out that Huawei is using state-owned Indian Telephone Industries (ITI) to manufacture equipment in India, but did not actually transfer the technology, thus posing a security threat to the country.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Twitter user outs president’s ‘jackass’ comment

mystubenmyspec — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:38:11 GMT

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/16/twitter-outs-presidents-jackass-comment/

Is fair game for tweeting while you are at work?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Legalize Hemp and Cannabis in California

Fully — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:02:04 GMT

Hi Family,

Consensual crimes which do not hurt anyone who is not a willing participant are not really crimes. Abraham Lincoln agreed.

Right now there are two competing signature drives to put Cannabis legalization initiatives on the ballot in California in

November 2010.

One is found at www.taxcannabis2010.org

The other is found at www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org

Please look carefully at the text of both laws (the text of each is finalized) and make up your own mind which one you support.

I am supporting www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org because our law will protect Cannabis users from discrimination in

healthcare, employment, and housing. It is a full legalization measure for industrial hemp and recreational cannabis which will restore full human rights to Hemp farmers and Cannabis users all across California. Of course supplying Cannabis to children will remain illegal just as it is today. Driving vehicles under the influence will remain illegal just as it is today. Cannabis users will still be fired from their jobs if they show up to work impaired.

There are two parts to our plan. The first part is to publicly post and personally distribute our "Freedom Lover's Call to Arms" in order to recruit volunteers. This document is available here-

www.imgur.com/dbU83

The second part of our plan is to ask everyone who volunteers to make a pledge for how many signatures they can collect in

the next 30 days or so. 15-30 signatures is a good number. If enough volunteers show this level of commitment we can succeed. You can probably get that number from your family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors without having to solicit in public too much. This is an "out of the closet" movement. We will have to proudly advocate human rights for responsible, honest, hard-working Cannabis smokers in order to convince legitimate people to support us. I can supply stickers equivalent to each persons pledge number. These stickers can be used to generate interest and be given to voters who sign the petition. Here is the sticker design-

www.imgur.com/2cjvb

Feel free to distribute and use these images. Just don't copyright them.

We have 145 days in order to get the number of signatures that we need. Our petition is hot off the press on 9/11 and we

have started collecting the first signatures yesterday 9/12.

We are polling 56% public support for Cannabis legalization in California which menas that this is an initiative which is not doomed. Its time has finally arrived; we are at the tipping point right now. Now is the time to do this and to do it right. We may only get one chance. If a law which is not exactly what we want is implemented then we may lose our critical mass and our ability to set it right.

I believe that less adults will smoke cannabis after it is legal. This is the case in the Netherlands where it has been

available over-the-counter for 30 years yet only half as many citizens (percentage-wise) smoke as do citizens here. My economics professor has taught for years that prohibition has not succeeded in decreasing usage by increasing penalties. Instead it has destroyed lives and families without substantial benefit to society. After legalization hard-drug usage will decrease due to a "separation of the markets," a decline in the price of Cannabis relative to hard-drugs, and the restoration of honesty and common sense in drug education. Violence, thievery, and the incarceration of honest people will decrease as well. I also believe that a well regulated market will decrease the availability and appeal of cannabis to children. In fact teenage Cannabis use in California has fallen steadily since the passage of Proposition 215. Furthermore the adults who smoke Cannabis after legalization will be better able appreciate the majesty of nature in peace and unity without learning to fear and disrespect authority figures. This will be better for their spirits and better for society. Finally the human rights of legitimate medical Cannabis patients will be better protected than they are today. Legalizing Cannabis will create a safer, healthier, and more humane California for us all to live in.

If you want to help us in any way please contact the CCI campaign at www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org or write me at

deep_space_underground@yahoo.com I give you my encouragement to modify this message if necessary and distribute it to anyone who might help on any forum or by any mechanism.

Love,
-Fully Committed

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Health care reform means more power for the IRS

barsnake — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:00:02 GMT

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

~~~

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 8 replies

Consumerist

Ed — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:23:16 GMT

http://consumerist.com/5348476/complaint-from-canada-prompts-facebook-privacy-changes

If you're suspicious of Facebook's use of your personal data, the social networking site has made some recent changes that may make you very happy. And for this, you can blame thank Canada.

Some of the provisions of Facebook's privacy policy sort of violate current Canadian law, and Facebook has agreed to make changes accordingly. The policies Canada had problems with included:

Third-Party Data Mining - Applications will need to explain what personal information they will take from your profile, and get specific consent to do so.
Account Deactivation - Users will be given the choice to deactivate or delete their accounts — the latter isn't currently an option.
Non-Users' Privacy - This probably involves the contact list import feature, and e-mail addresses obtained through it.
Information in Memorial Accounts - Accounts can be either deactivated or put in "memorial" mode when a user dies. The privacy policies will need to better explain what the site does with the profile information of dead users.
Thanks, Canadian government! Facebook users in the rest of the world appreciate it.

Canada wins Facebook fight [Toronto Star]
Thanks, Canada: Facebook's 4 Big Privacy Fixes [PC World]

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

Conspiracy Collage

marvindublin — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:34:48 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaOXPWesFo - Conspiracy Collage - 1 - By Mr. M

I made this video tonight. Yay.

M

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists

Tedster — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:57:16 GMT

Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search

Monday August 31, 2009

By Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)

A California court has issued a subpoena demanding Google reveal the IP addresses of journalists writing for a corruption busting journal from the Caribbean.

The August 28 subpoena, issued by the Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, as part of a "libel tourism" action taken by non-US property developers, demands detailed information about the operators of "tcijournal@gmail.com". The account is the main email address of the TCI Journal, the most influential journal covering the Turks & Caicos Islands. The Islands are a tourist mecca and tax haven in the Caribbean sea, and until August 14 were an independent British protectorate.

Exposures in the Journal culminated in a dramatic UK governance takeover of the Islands on August 14.

A trail of evidence dug up by the TCI Journal, a UK commission of inquiry, and others, showed that foreign property developers were giving millions in secret loans and payments to senior Islander politicians, including an alleged $500,000 cash payment to the Island's now former Premier, Michael Misick.

The Commission of Inquiry Final Report was released on the 18th of July this year in significatly redacted form. A full version was released by WikiLeaks. A High Court case ensued which initially enjoined all media in the Islands from reporting the redacted findings, however within a few days this restriction was overturned.

The Gmail subpeona applicant, property developer Dr. Cem Kinay, along with his two companies, Turks Ltd, and Star Platinum Island, were mentioned several times during public oral hearings of the Commission of Inquiry and featured significantly in the redacted portions of the Commission's Final Report.

In particular there are allegations of bribery of public officials (e.g of the Premier with an irregular payment of $500,000), in the acquisition of public land valued by the government appraiser at approximately $60 - $100 million dollars U.S., for a price of $3.2 million dollars.

On August 14, the UK announced that it had taken direct rule over the Islands and suspended its parliament.

According to the notifying letter from Google to the Journal, Google intends to hand over the requested records in just over two weeks, without any defense, and states that the Journal may file a counter-motion with the Santa-Clara court itself.

Subpoenas for records are rubber-stamped by US courts, meaning that anyone in a position to start law suits in California can obtain private information about Gmail users who are not in a position to respond in kind, including cash-strapped corruption busting journalists from the Caribbean.

Google has elected to keep extensive, non-anoymized records on its users, but not defend these records from disclosure. This combination, together with inequitable access to justice in Californian courts, is toxic.

http://bit.ly/oemdH

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Consider how you browse...

PaulaC — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:47:38 GMT

http://kingofgng.com/eng/2009/08/29/why-the-fool-blocks-google-safe-browsing/

"Why The Fool blocks Google Safe-Browsing
August 29, 2009 · Filed Under Networking, News

The Fool is an Italian start-up founded by Matteo Flora, a security consultant known for having helped Silvio Berlusconi’s Mediaset to put together the data required to bring a 500 million euros lawsuit against Google and YouTube in July 2008. On the blog of FoolDNS, the main product offered by The Fool, the company has recently explained the reasons why Google Safe-Browsing is part of the service blacklist hence it is blocked for users and companies which use it.

FoolDNS is a website filtering and Internet usage monitoring system working at the DNS level, likewise to other services as the well known OpenDNS. Google Safe-Browsing, on the other hand, started as an optional add-on for Mozilla Firefox and eventually turned into an anti-phishing and anti-malware API-based service, currently implemented on Firefox, Safari and obviously the Google-browser Chrome.

“For years we said that SafeBrowsing is the main reason for the millionaire agreement between Mozilla Foundation and Google - the FoolDNS blog states - because the system allows to trace the behaviours of single users behind any IP effectively allowing the user identification by his browser’s UniqueID even after Cookies deletion and roaming between home and office“.

The Italian company says that, essentially, Google uses and abuses the (real) protection offered by Safe-Browsing to have the chance to (presumably) track users in a univocal way, without depending on cookies or other temporary identification systems that are easy to bypass. To corroborate its theory, FoolDNS quotes “the very highly esteemed” site Ha.ckers.org in a post that highlights the oddities of Safe-Browsing’s home-phoning system.

“When I started looking at Chrome I noticed two additional pieces of information that were being phoned home outside of Safe Browsing” the Ha.ckers.org post says. This two extra data pieces, tagged machineid and userid, “both computed information based on machine/user information“, and were sent together with other data useful to Google to decide if there was the need of a protection update.

“The real question“, the post continues, is “why would Google need to know my machineid and userid to give me an update - wouldn’t the version number of my browser be enough to make that decision? I just can’t believe this isn’t used for tracking“. “There’s no more plausible deniability“, Ha.ckers.org and FoolDNS say together, Google Safe-Browsing is “a perfect way to spy on people” by exploiting the browser against users in the name of security.

The conclusion of the post is that “Safe Browsing is a great feature since it protects you from phishing and malware sites“, but despite of what stated in the Google privacy policy, facing a law court order Mountain View would be obliged to blurt out everything the company knows about a particular user, including the eventual tracking data gathered up to that time. On Firefox it is possible to disable the service to protect one’s own privacy, but as of Chrome the only useful advice is “don’t use it“. "

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Are there any real privacy laws?

carolyna — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:11:49 GMT

This case has me curious:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/08/can-you-be-sued-for-unmasking-an-anonymous-blogger.html

Both sides are pretty unsympathetic initially, but at the same time I also feel for both: the right to post anonymously and the right to not be defamed...

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 21 replies

From the ACLU -- Quiz: What Do Facebook Quizzes Know About You?

carolyna — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:05:24 GMT

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/quiz_what_do_facebook_quizzes_know_about_you.shtml

Posted June 11, 2009 by Chris Conley

Ever whiled away five minutes on a Facebook quiz, finding out what cartoon character is your look-alike or how your IQ stacks up? These quizzes may seem like a perfectly harmless way to spend a few spare minutes. But have you stopped to think about what these quizzes are learning about you and how that info could be used? Take our quiz and learn more!

QUESTION 1: When you take a Facebook quiz, the quiz:

A. Is just for fun and doesn’t collect any info about you.
B. Collects the info in your answers, but nothing else.
C. Collects the info in your answers, has access to your profile, and may even be able to access your friends’ profiles.

ANSWER: C.

This isn’t a back-of-the-magazine quiz – Facebook quizzes can collect and store the answers you give. But that’s not all: these quizzes can collect the information in your profile – and even information from your friends’ profiles – in addition to any answers you give.

QUESTION 2: OK, that doesn’t sound good, but my privacy settings will protect my information, right? By default, Facebook’s privacy settings:

A. Prevent any application from seeing anything on my profile unless I install and use that application.
B. Prevent applications from seeing anything on my profile if I have specific privacy settings for specific details on my profile.
C. Allow applications – including those used by my friends – to access to my profile.

ANSWER: C.

Facebook, no stranger to controversy over its policies regarding user data, does not have policies in place that reassure users that their information is automatically kept private. By default, Facebook’s privacy settings let applications access information on your profile even if you have restricted access to a specific network or friend group (as application privacy settings are separate from profile privacy settings). In addition, Facebook's default settings allow applications run by your friends to pull information from your profile. Surprised? Check out your settings and see for yourself!

QUESTION 3: OK, so quizzes can collect a lot of info – but what can they do with it? The information that quizzes collect:

A. Cannot be retained or used at all
B. Can only be used in connection with Facebook.
C. Could be used, sold, or released in any way the developer chooses.

ANSWER: B – sort of.

Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities requires that application developers limit their use of any user data that they collect. That’s nice - in theory. But in practice, it only works if quiz developers comply with this limit. If they don’t, your information could easily be abused, sold, or released without your knowledge or consent. How do you know if you can trust these developers?

QUESTION 4: No worries; Facebook screens developers carefully, right? To be a Facebook developer, a person or company must:

A. Pass a thorough screening by Facebook and provide Facebook with a real name, address, and telephone number.
B. Provide Facebook with a real name, address, and telephone number.
C. Have nothing more than a Facebook account possibly tied to an anonymous email address.

ANSWER: C.

That’s right: these developers – who are able to collect all sorts of information about you and your friends – don’t have to reveal their information to you (or to Facebook) at all. That means it can be hard for Facebook to enforce these developer data use limits - or even to know if they've been violated in the first place.

QUESTION 5: All right, I’ve heard enough – I want to do something about it! The best way for me to take action is to:

A. Use Facebook’s privacy settings to limit the information that my friends’ quizzes and applications can see on your profile.
B. Demand that Facebook strengthen its privacy protections so that users can effectively retain control over their own information.
C. Join the dotRights campaign on Facebook to learn more about how I can take control of my online info and Demand My dotRights!

ANSWER: ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Taking control of your own privacy by using the privacy settings that Facebook offers is a good start – but it’s time to start demanding more of the companies who hold our personal information. Tell Facebook that you want better privacy protection for your personal information. Sign up for our email list and join our dotRights campaign on Facebook to learn more about what you can do to control your privacy online. And stick around as we expand our campaign to reclaim control of our personal information and Demand Our dotRights!

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 19 replies

Job Seekers

mystubenmyspec — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:39:01 GMT

Over the years employers have increased the types of searches they do on canididates during the interview process. I know as a hiring manager I always look up the candidates I am talking to. This helps a hiring manager find out more about a candidate. We used to call it Googleing candidates and these days we call it Facebooking candidates.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to look up someone of FB and she posted in her status update

"if they hire me I think I will only stay until something better comes along".

Well, after that we didn't hire her, but we were pretty close to doing so as she interviewed well and said all of the right things and had good references. She should have had her profile on FB set to private.

My question is, how far is too far when employers take information job seakers put out there to aid in the hiring process?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Surrendering Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border

Enrika — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:02:04 GMT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/26/772693/-Surrendering-Your-Fourth-Amendment-Rights-at-the-Border

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

white house SPAM...

barsnake — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:23:43 GMT

The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's health care plan without signing up for them

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.

~~~

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/white-house-reveals-identity-firm-sent-unsolicited-e-mails-health-reform/?test=latestnews

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

BAN MIND CONTROL/ DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

Native Flower — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:13:26 GMT

I know this sounds like science fiction or a conspiracy theory, but it's not. It is a complete reality and a huge danger to humanity. Please check out the following petition and sign it. As crazy as this may sound but mind control energy weapons is a reality. Millions of people are suffering from the mental abuse and torture of these weapons that are not openely talked about or known, or "declassified." The abuse is largely sexist and racist and targets people who are of certain ethnicities... primarily who are not white. The abuse is deliberate, cruel, and is done by directing energy beams, via satellite or other means, onto the body/person/ brain of the individuals targeting certain centers of the brain to elicit responses or actions. The companies, military, governments who are doing this also use sound weapons to direct sounds, subtle or not, vibrations and energy in the mind or environment of the victims to harrass, abuse, and control the actions of these individuals. Whether they are able to do control the person or not, they definitely abuse and severely mentally and psychologically hurt the victims.

BAN MIND CONTROL/DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

To: the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, see more...your Governor, Members of your State Senate, Members of your State House, the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Started by: Soleilmavis L

WE CONCERN ABOUT THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF THE FOLLOWINGS :- DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS; COINTELPRO; ANDany other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.Please help to ban abuses and tortures of above-mentioned weapons.
Yours Sincerely,
Soleilmavis
peacepink.ning.com

"Mailtem" members of THE WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN AGAINST the (secret) Abuse and Torture That Uses Mind Control, Directed Energy Weapons and Manipulation Weapons on Every Living Being.
peacepink.ning.com/forum/to...m-members

1.

This petition ends on Dec 31.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 9 replies

Yet more TSA goodness: bend over, citizen!

AlohaSteven — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:49:23 GMT

I feel so much safer...
http://wonkette.com/410473/tsa-introduces-new-ways-to-ruin-your-vacation-prove-youre-not-a-terrorist
...how about you?

Doubleplusgood, that!

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

BurningManLLC not so free, not so bohemian...

PaulaC — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:30:08 GMT

More like TheMan in dusty clothing

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa

I'd copy text, but I was having a tough time selecting in the article. Sorry.

Oh, and their reply included... "Burning Man’s ongoing efforts to protect the rights of our participants, and our efforts to forestall the creep of commercialism into the foundations of our culture." I have one word. Balderdash.

http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Building anonymity into the Net

deborahp — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:15:19 GMT

Yes, it's still possible - but we have to demand it. We don't have to build surveillance in.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23958/?nlid=2255
Monday, August 10, 2009
How to Build Anonymity Into the Internet
Could Internet service providers help provide basic privacy services to all users?
By Erica Naone

Most people leave a trail when surfing the Web. Information such as a computer's IP address can be traced back to users, or used to reconstruct a profile of browsing habits. Search engines amass large quantities of data on individuals. Though they don't store this along with usernames, researchers have previously shown that individuals can still be identified using this data.

People who want to avoid leaving this trail can turn to services such as Tor, an open-source system designed to muddy the path a user's data travels over the Internet (see "Dissent Made Safer"). But Tor struggles with slow network performance, and the service might be overwhelmed if too many users adopted it without also contributing resources.

Last week, at the 9th annual Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium, researchers described some more robust protections. They wondered if privacy protection could come from the ISPs responsible for the backbone of the Internet.

One project, anon.next, presented by Matthew Wright, who co-directs the iSec research lab at the University of Texas at Arlington, looks ahead to next-generation deployments of the Internet itself. In the event of a redesign of Internet architecture, Wright argues, proxies that help preserve anonymity could be built in. He envisions working with ISPs to determine points in the network where the proxies would be effective both in terms of protection and performance.

Other researchers are looking for solutions that could work on the Web as it is today. Barath Raghavan, a visiting assistant professor at Williams College in Massachusetts, along with researchers from the University of California, San Diego, and the University of Washington, suggest a protocol that could effectively hide a user's IP address within the rest of an Internet service provider's traffic. The researchers say that adding their system wouldn't hurt performance, and would work in conjunction with Tor and other privacy-protection services. They suggest that ISPs might be willing to add the protocol as a benefit to attract customers, similar to services offered by telephone companies that prevent users from being identified by called ID.

While ISPs are a logical place to turn for privacy help, events such as the passage of the Patriot Act in the United States, which made it possible for the authorities to demand information without a subpoena, make ISPs uncertain allies. The bottom line is, they're only likely to help if there's a large customer demand for privacy.

Most people think of online privacy as something most important for citizen journalists in countries with oppressive regimes. However, the number of business models that rely on the collection and sale of user data may for some people in this country to reconsider taking steps to protect it.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

flag@whitehouse.gov

barsnake — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:55:33 GMT

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

Flash cookies = zombie cookies - you delete 'em, and they resurrect

deborahp — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:08:49 GMT

It's all about behavior targeting -- one of the hottest issues in consumer online privacy right now.

You Deleted Your Cookies? Think Again
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/you-deleted-your-cookies-think-again/

* By Ryan Singel Email Author
* August 10, 2009

More than half of the internet’s top websites use a little known capability of Adobe’s Flash plugin to track users and store information about them, but only four of them mention the so-called Flash Cookies in their privacy policies, UC Berkeley researchers reported Monday.

Unlike traditional browser cookies, Flash cookies are relatively unknown to web users, and they are not controlled through the cookie privacy controls in a browser. That means even if a user thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they most likely have not.

What’s even sneakier?

Several services even use the surreptitious data storage to reinstate traditional cookies that a user deleted, which is called re-spawning in homage to video games where zombies come back to life even after being “killed,” the report found. So even if a user gets rid of a website’s tracking cookie, that cookie’s unique ID will be assigned back to a new cookie again using the Flash data as the “backup.”

Even the Whitehouse.gov showed up in the report, with researchers reporting they found a Flash cookie with the name “userId.” The site does say in its privacy policy that it uses tracking technology but it does not mention Flash or tell users how to turn get rid of the Flash cookie.

The report is being submitted Monday as a comment in the government’s proceeding about the use of cookies on federal websites. Federal websites have traditionally been banned from using tracking cookies, despite being common around the web — a situation the Obama administration is proposing to change as part of an attempt to modernize government websites.

But the debate shouldn’t be about allowing browser cookies or not, according Ashkan Soltani, a UC Berkeley graduate student who helped lead the study.

“If users don’t want to be tracked and there is a problem with tracking, then we should regulate tracking, not regulate cookies,” Soltani said.

The study also comes as Congress and federal regulators are looking at ways of reining in the online tracking and advertising industry, whose attempts at self-regulation have conspicuously failed to make the industry transparent about when, how and why it collects data about internet users.

Websites and advertisers track users closely in order to improve services, prove to advertisers that an ad has been shown one time to 1 million users, and not 10 times to the same 100,000 people. Ad networks also collect the information in order to segment users into different groups, such as “car fanatic” or “fashionista,” in order to charge advertisers a premium for reaching just the slice of users the company thinks will be most receptive to its ad.

Smelling possible regulation coming, third party ad networks recently agreed to an updated voluntary code of conduct, though it prohibits little and has no enforcement mechanism. For instance, when it comes to sensitive health information, the networks are free to collect as much information as they like, so long as it does not involve an actual prescription.

Soltani led a summer research team at Berkeley, under the direction of Chris Hoofnagle, the Director of Information Privacy Programs at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. The team tested the top 100 sites to see what their privacy policies said, what their tracking technology actually does and what happens if a user blocks the Flash cookie.

Adobe’s Flash software is installed on an estimate 98 percent of personal computers, and has been a key component in the explosion of online video, powering video players for sites such as YouTube and Hulu.

Websites can store up to 100K of information in the plug-in, 25 times what a browser cookie can hold. Sites like Pandora.com also use Flash’s storage capability to preload portions of songs or videos to ensure smooth playback.

All modern browsers now include fine-grained controls to let users decide what cookies to accept and which to get rid of, but Flash cookies are handled differently. These are fixed through a web page on Adobe’s site, where the controls are not easily understood (There is a panel for Global Privacy Settings and another for Website Privacy Settings — the difference is unclear). In fact, the controls are so odd, the page has to tell you that it is the control, not just a tutorial on how to use the control.

This so-called behavioral targeting is coming under scrutiny, in part since Google bought one of the largest practitioners — DoubleClick — and recently announced it would start using its troves of user data to deliver targeted ads. Its main money makers, the small text ads next to search results and on websites across the net, simply rely on the words in a search or on a webpage to place ads, a tactic known as contextual ads.

Defenders of behavioral ads say that privacy shouldn’t be a concern since cookies really identify a browser, not a person. Moreover, they argue that users would prefer to have relevant ads. Targeted Behavioral Ads could also help save online journalism. Under this theory, Google text ads don’t work on a news story about the governor raising the sales tax, since there’s no product that goes with that context. But if the site knew the reader was in the market for a car, it could show an ad for the new Lexis and earn much more.

The report names two companies, Clearspring and QuantCast, as companies whose technologies reinstate cookies for other websites.

Clearspring, the makers of the popular AddThis tool that lets users share a link by e-mail or on social networking sites, used its Flash cookie to reinstated deleted browser cookies for AOL.com, Answers.com and Mapquest.com, according to the report.

The company defends its behavior, saying everyone uses Flash cookies these days, that it discloses its use of Flash in its privacy policy and that the copying of data back into cookies is a simply way to speed up pages by transferring data into HTML cookies, which browsers read faster.

Clearspring’s AddThis tool is used by more than 300,000 publishers and the company collects data on some 525 million unique internet users monthly, according to Clearspring CEO Hooman Radfar. The data will soon be used to personalize the AddThis widget, making it so that a user who has previously shared a story by Twitter and Friendfeed will see those options first, rather than social networks he doesn’t use.

“We have the president, the pope and the queen of England using us,” Hooman told Wired.com in an interview a few weeks ago. “If they can trust us, then you can.”

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Roadside testing for driving under the influence of illegal drugs

deborahp — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:34:59 GMT

Testing for alcohol is one thing, alcohol is legal to possess and consume (just not while you're driving). Illegal drugs are, well, illegal. If you're tested roadside, not only are you guilty of 'driving under the influence', but also of the underlying crime of illegal drug possession. The 4th Amendment is very much implicated.

And, of course, what's to stop cops from abusing an otherwise legitimate stop? Can they set up roadblocks?

As seen on slashdot (okay, I'm a geek) ;)

Philips Develops Roadside Drug-Testing Device
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/04/1652255/Philips-Develops-Roadside-Drug-Testing-Device

"A handheld developed by Philips for law enforcement detects traces of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and methamphetamine in 90 seconds. The system uses magnetic nanoparticles attached to ligands that bind to traces of these drugs. Once saliva has been placed inside the device, an electromagnet mixes the sample and the nanoparticles. Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) — the same phenomenon that underlies fingerprint scanners and multitouch screens — is then used to measure a change to the refractive index. By immobilizing different drug molecules on different parts of a sensor surface, the analyzer is able to identify traces of each different drug. An electronic screen displays instructions and a simple color-coded readout of the results."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

cash for clunkers...

barsnake — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:50:48 GMT

When dealers logged in to apply for the cash part of the "cash for clunkers" program, the site cars.gov/dealership prompted them with the warning:

"This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is property of the United States government... users have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy."

"Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected and disclosed to authorized CARS, DOT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."

"By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion CARS or the DOT personnel."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Britain To Put CCTV Cameras Inside Private Homes

Tedster — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:29:45 GMT

Gadget Lab Hardware News and Reviews
Britain To Put CCTV Cameras Inside Private Homes

georgeorwellAs an ex-Brit, I’m well aware of the authorities’ love of surveillance and snooping, but even I, a pessimistic cynic, am amazed by the governments latest plan: to install Orwell’s telescreens in 20,000 homes.

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs.

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

And remember, this is the left-wing government. The Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, batting for the conservatives, thinks these plans are “too little, and too late,” implying that even more obtrusive work needs to be done. Rumors that a new detention center, named Room 101, is being constructed inside the Ministry of Love are unconfirmed.

Sin Bins for Worst Families [Sunday Express. Thanks, Annaliza]

Photo illustration Charlie Sorrel, original image public domain

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 12 replies

Facebook revolt?

deborahp — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:27 GMT

I just saw this article that discusses how some people are leaving Facebook (and other social networks?) over privacy settings, ToS, intrusiveness and marketing issues, etc.

I'll admit, I've been kind of wondering if this would happen. Thoughts?

Here's the article:
Not everyone buys into social media
http://www.canada.com/everyone+buys+into+social+media/1815764/story.html
More people appear to be abandoning sites like Facebook

By Michelle Magnan, Canwest News ServiceJuly 22, 2009

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 7 replies

Mapping drug use by testing sewer water

deborahp — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:48:54 GMT

I just saw this on Bruce Schneier's blog.... Wow.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/mapping_drug_us.html

July 23, 2009
Mapping Drug Use by Testing Sewer Water

I wrote about this in 2007, but there's new research:

Scientists from Oregon State University, the University of Washington and McGill University partnered with city workers in 96 communities, including Pendleton, Hermiston and Umatilla, to gather samples on one day, March 4, 2008. The scientists then tested the samples for evidence of methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy, or MDMA.

Addiction specialists were not surprised by the researchers' central discovery, that every one of the 96 cities -- representing 65 percent of Oregon's population -- had a quantifiable level of methamphetamine in its wastewater.

"This validates what we suspected about methamphetamine use in Oregon," said Geralyn Brennan, addiction prevention epidemiologist for the Department of Human Services.

Drug researchers previously determined the extent of illicit drug use through mortality records and random surveys, which are not considered entirely reliable. Survey respondents may not accurately recall how much or how often they use illicit drugs and they may not be willing to tell the truth. Surveys also gathered information about large regions of the state, not individual cities.

The data gathered from municipal wastewater, however, are concrete and reveal a detailed snapshot of drug use for that day. Researchers placed cities into ranks based on a drug's "index load" - average milligrams per person per day.

These techniques can detect drug usage at individual houses. It's just a matter of where you take your samples.

Posted on July 23, 2009 at 6:09 AM • 38 Comments • 2 Blog Reactions
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 11 replies

Using the latest military tech to police US cities

deborahp — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:28:43 GMT

Breathtaking.

Coming upon that first quote when I was reading the article, I thought it was from '1984'.

And of course, technology like this would never be abused....

http://avpress.com/n/09/0709_s3.hts
Big Brother flies into Valley with 'crime-fighting' eyes
This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press
Thursday, July 9, 2009.

By DAISY RATZLAFF and ALLISON GATLIN
Valley Press Staff Writers
LANCASTER - In what they say is the first step toward a new era in law enforcement techniques, city officials are testing a small airplane mounting a high-tech surveillance camera to help fight crime.

The aerial surveillance system features high-definition video recording technology that is capable of viewing people or objects

several miles away and whose images can later be magnified to identify the individuals, officials said.

"You never know when you are being watched or followed. It would be stupid to commit a crime. You see it with such detail," said Mayor R. Rex Parris, who took a ride last week in a camera-equipped airplane with pilot Dick Rutan.

"I have every hope that Lancaster will be the first city to deploy it. I've never been so excited about anything."

Such surveillance technology is used by the military, NASA and a limited number of other federal agencies, but Lancaster would be the first entity in the United States to use it for general public safety, officials said.

Parris asked Rutan, a Mojave Air and Space Port commissioner who is famous for piloting the Voyager aircraft around the world nonstop and unrefueled in 1986, for assistance in developing the concept of placing an "eye in the sky" over Lancaster.

At first, Rutan looked into deploying the camera on an unmanned aircraft to patrol the city's skies, but that proved to be too expensive and faced too many difficulties with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Using a conventional small plane "solves all kinds of problems," Rutan said. "It's a lot cheaper to have a pilot on board than a drone."

For the first demonstration flight last week, the camera was mounted on a Cessna Caravan, but Rutan is researching smaller general aviation aircraft for the aerial platform.

The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said.

"I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the imagery you're able to get, day and night," he said. "I think it would be a terrific tool for law enforcement."

"I'm really excited to be part of it," Rutan said.

During the demonstration flight, the system was used to observe a car accident, a city announcement said.

The camera detected the collision due to the heat produced by the vehicles, and within seconds focused on the area and provided a clear picture of all vehicles and people in the area.

The mayor said he can't predict how long it will take to make the "eye in the sky" operational.

City officials said in the announcement that the trial flight exceeded their expectations, but called it just the first step in the process.

"This demonstration is a major milestone in a project that will improve the quality of life in the Antelope Valley," City Manager Mark Bozigian said in the announcement.

"To put it simply, it works. The next step is to make it operational, which includes financial considerations."

dratzlaff@avpress.com

agatlin@avpress.com

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

INTELSPY.COM

marvindublin — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:56:52 GMT

http://www.intelspy.com/2wicocmwaprc.html

BOINK!!! : )

"Um yes. I'll take that. And that. And that.........."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 6 replies

wave hi to mom = no diploma

Ray — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:14:55 GMT

these seems like some kind of right to me, after
years of school work....

There's nothing on the school's website mentioning this event.
clearly, they're trying to be in denial.

join me in sending these ultra-conservative idiots an emails demanding
rational behavior !

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/bonny-eagle-high-school-student-denied-diploma-blowing-kiss

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/bonny_eagle_high_school_student_blew_a_kiss_and_didnt_receive_his_diploma_061620091245512/

http://www.wmtw.com/education/19763059/detail.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526642,00.html

http://www.sad6.k12.me.us/behs/index

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sI8aP4OOc&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NC5YCv66C8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_HmxkBaU0&feature=related

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

Tagged.com

deborahp — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:30:18 GMT

NY state is investigating them for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.

It looks like what Tagged does is send you an email informing you that a friend of yours has photos for you to see. You click on the link which takes you to -- no photos. But Tagged has your email address, opts you into their social networking system, and then spams your address book. And the cycle begins again....

Here are a couple of articles on Tagged.com

(more at link)
NY official: Tagged site stole identities
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090709/ap_on_hi_te/us_tagged_lawsuit

* By VERENA DOBNIK, Associated Press Writer - Thu Jul 9, 2009 5:01PM EDT
NEW YORK -

New York's attorney general charged Thursday that Tagged.com stole the identities of more than 60 million Internet users worldwide — by sending e-mails that raided their private accounts.

Andrew Cuomo said he plans to sue the social networking Web site for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.

"This company stole the address books and identities of millions of people," Cuomo said in a statement. "Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologize to all their e-mail contacts for Tagged's unethical — and illegal — behavior."

and

(more at link)
Social-networking site Tagged accused of massive invasion of privacy traffic

By Steve Johnson and John Boudreau
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12799574?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
Mercury News
Posted: 07/09/2009 01:07:02 PM PDT
Updated: 07/09/2009 10:05:57 PM PDT

Over recent months, tens of millions of people allegedly have received e-mails telling them that friends or acquaintances were inviting them to view pictures on the Web site of a San Francisco social network, Tagged.com. Just one problem, law enforcement authorities say: The company never asked its members for permission to solicit people on their contact lists. It just took them.

Thursday, Tagged.com. found itself accused by New York authorities of a massive invasion of privacy, having abused the most precious commodity users share on social sites — their identity.

"This company stole the address books and identities of millions of people," said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Beginning in April, according to Cuomo, Tagged sent tens of millions of e-mails to people listed on the contact lists of its members telling the e-mail recipients that the members had posted photos for the recipients to view.

"When recipients of these fraudulent e-mails tried to access the photos," which didn't actually exist, a statement from Cuomo's office said, "they were forced to become a new member of Tagged." It said a lawsuit will be filed against the company, seeking fines and other penalties.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

Medical records data breach law in California

deborahp — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:18:54 GMT

Thanks to a new law in California, we can find out how prevalent medical records data breaches are. It's looking like they're a little too prevalent...

more at link

New Law Floods California With Medical Data Breach Reports
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/health-breaches/
* By Kim Zetter
* July 9, 2009

California officials have received more than 800 reports of health data breaches in the first five months after a new state law went into effect January 1.

The law requires health care organizations in California to report suspected incidents of intentional and unintentional unauthorized breaches of a patient’s personally identifiable health information to the California Department of Public Health.

The agency, however, says it was surprised by the large number of reports it received in such a short period, according to the Journal of the American Health Information Management Association, and expects that number to increase dramatically as organizations become more familiar with the reporting procedures.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Yellow Dots of Mystery

Tedster — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:46:54 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izMGMsIZK4U&feature=channel

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 8 replies

Social Security Numbers can be predicted knowing only DoB & state where you were born

deborahp — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:43:32 GMT

Wow, just wow.

Alessandro Acquisti has done a lot of research on triangulation of data, particularly of data on social networks.

What I take from this is that any kind of an ID system that relies on an SSN (like Real ID, Secure Flight, etc.) is destined to fail.

Social Security Numbers Can Be Extrapolated From Public Data
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/predictingssn/

* By Hadley Leggett
* July 6, 2009

For years, government officials have urged consumers to protect their social security numbers by giving out the nine-digit codes only when absolutely necessary. Now it turns out that all the caution in the world may not be enough: New research shows that social security numbers can be predicted from publicly available birth information with a surprising degree of accuracy.

By analyzing a public data set called the “Death Master File,” which contains SSNs and birth information for people who have died, computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University discovered distinct patterns in how the numbers are assigned. In many cases, knowing the date and state of an individual’s birth was enough to predict a person’s SSN.

“We didn’t break any secret code or hack into undisclosed data set,” said privacy expert Alessandro Acquisti, co-author of the study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “We used only publicly available information, and that’s why our result is of value. It shows that you can take personal information that’s not sensitive, like birth date, and combine it with other publicly available data to come up with something very sensitive and confidential.”

With just two attempts, the researchers correctly guessed the first five digits of SSNs for 60 percent of deceased Americans born between 1989 and 2003. With fewer than 1,000 attempts, they could identify the entire nine digits for 8.5 percent of the group.

There’s only a few short steps between making a statistical prediction about a person’s SSN and verifying their actual number, Acquisti said. Through a process called “tumbling,” hackers can exploit instant online credit approval services — or even the Social Security Administration’s own verification database — to test multiple numbers until they find the right one. Although these services usually block users after several failed attempts, criminals can use networks of compromised computers called botnets to scan thousands of numbers at a time.

“A botnet can be programmed to try variations of a social security number to apply for an instant credit card,” Acquisti said. “In 60 seconds, these services tell you whether you are approved or not, so they can be abused to tell whether you’ve hit the right social security number.”

To keep identity thieves from exploiting their research, the scientists left a few key details about their method out of the paper, and they released the document to government agencies before making it public.

After developing an algorithm using the Death Master File, the researchers tested their results using information on birthday and hometown taken from a social networking site (the researchers declined to say which one). Again, they were able to predict social security numbers with a high degree of accuracy.

“It worked a little worse in the online social test for obvious reasons,” Acquisti said. “Some people may not reveal the right date of birth, or they may call hometown where they went to high school, not where they were born. There’s more noise in online social networking, but nevertheless the two studies confirmed each other.”

It also turns out that some SSNs are easier to predict than others. Because of the way numbers are assigned, younger people and those born in less populated states are more at risk, Acquisti said. Before 1988, many people didn’t apply for an SSN until they left for college or got their first job. But thanks to an anti-fraud effort in 1988 called the “Enumeration at Birth” initiative, parents started applying for their child’s number at birth, making it much easier to predict based on a person’s birthday.

The new findings remind consumers that they should use caution when sharing data online, even when the information itself doesn’t seem particularly sensitive. But Acquisti said his real message is for policymakers.

“We really wanted to come public with this result because the issue goes way beyond individual response,” he said. “It’s not just about remembering to shred your documents or to remove personal identification off your mail. As much as you try to protect your personal info, the info is already out there.”

According to information privacy experts, social security numbers were never meant to be used for authentication purposes, and using them as passwords puts all consumers at risk for identity theft.

“I have long argued that Congress or the Federal Trade Commission should prohibit companies from using SSNs as a means to verify identity,” Daniel J. Solove, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, wrote in an email. “Merely protecting against their disclosure is insufficient since Acquisti and Gross demonstrate that they can readily be predicted.”

As a first step, the researchers suggest that the Social Security Administration start randomizing the assignment of SSNs. But randomization is only a Band-Aid, Acquisti said.

“It can buy us more time, but it isn’t going to change the underlying problem,” he said. “These numbers are supposed to be secret, but your bank has it, your insurance company has it, even your doctor has it. As long as we rely on numbers that are used as both identifiers and authenticators, then we are a system that remains insecure.”

Privacy law expert Chris Hoofnagle of the University of California, Berkeley, says the response must be drastic. “Their paper points to a radical solution: Perhaps we should stop trying to protect the secrecy of the SSN, and just publish all of them to prevent their use as passwords.”

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 6 replies

'Congrats to Uncle C' – how his wife's Facebook page exposed new MI6 head

Ed — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:46:49 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/05/mi6-facebook-sawers-wife-miliband

It was just the usual sort of stuff that gets posted on Facebook: embarrassing family photographs, humdrum details of home life and a few congratulatory messages from relatives and friends on that promotion to the top job. Nothing to get excited about – unless the top job in question happens to be as the director of Britain's secret intelligence agency, MI6. And the man pictured in the questionable swimwear happens to be the next C himself.

Sir John Sawers, who takes up the post in November, found himself at the centre of the embarrassing security row after it was revealed that his wife, Shelley, had posted the sort of information that MI6 operatives are supposed to keep under wraps on her Facebook page. As well as the photos, she had posted details about their children and the location of the flat the couple use in London.

She had not taken advantage of Facebook's privacy settings, so all the information was available to any of the 200 million users in the open-access London network, as well as being searchable on Google.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, played down the seriousness of the affair.

The Mail on Sunday had claimed its story – which also revealed that Shelley Sawers's half-brother is a researcher for the Holocaust-denying historian David Irving – showed that Sawers had left himself open to a potentially catastrophic security failure. Miliband, however, disagreed. Deploying some distinctly undiplomatic sarcasm, the foreign secretary told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "You [are] leading the news with … the fact that there's a picture that the head of the MI6 goes swimming. Wow, that really is exciting. It is not a state secret that he wears Speedo swimming trunks, for goodness' sake let's grow up."

The offending page was swiftly removed and the Foreign Office refused to comment on the matter, saying it had nothing to add.

However, Whitehall officials said it was a potentially serious security breach and official security procedures had either been ignored or not been properly passed on to the family. The D notice committee regularly asks journalists not to publish family details or addresses of officials in the security and intelligence agencies.

Sawers is currently the UK ambassador to the UN in New York. Although he has been close to No 10 and the foreign policy establishment for a long time, it is still highly unusual for a diplomat to be chosen as the head – or C, for chief, as he is officially called – of MI6. Whitehall officials suggested that one of the problems was the difficult transition Sawers was making, from being a public figure to becoming the head of MI6.

The Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, who chairs the counter-terrorism sub-committee, said the mistake had left the Sawers family "extremely vulnerable". Referring to Miliband's suggestion that the incident was not significant, Mercer said: "If that is the case why has the site being taken down?" He also pointed out that military chiefs had warned that the Taliban get 80% of their intelligence from Twitter and Facebook.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, called for an inquiry into whether Sawers should still be allowed to accept the job.

"Normally, I would welcome greater openness in government for officials or politicians but this type of exposure verges on the reckless," said the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davy. "The prime minister should immediately commission an internal inquiry as to whether this has breached the security of the incoming head of MI6 too seriously to allow him to take up the post."

In the past year, Shelley Sawers has posted on topics from family parties and holidays to the health of their pets. On 16 June, the day Sawers's appointment was announced, she posted 19 pictures of the couple on holiday in the West Country. Her Facebook friends also used the account to send messages to her husband about his new job. One relative wrote: "Congrats on the new job, already dubbed Sir Uncle 'C' by nephews in the know!"
---------------
I find the claim 80 percent of taliban information comees from social networking sites to be the kind of urban legend statistic that gets made up by the security types out of conveinence.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

A tough one for me...

PaulaC — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:38:40 GMT

I know that 'public' video cameras is a privacy no no and in theory, I agree with this concept. Here's where I am having a tough time of it. I am living in a neighborhood that has suffered gravely with the real estate crash and we are dealing with a large amount of crime. We have had home invasion robberies and some foreclosed homes have been sold to uncaring slum lords who have rented the homes out to people who have no cares about the neighborhood.

So many people are struggling here that they just come home and hide. They also hide from the new bullies of the neighborhood and my attempts to do a little community building are progressing incredibly slowly. I took a job down at the clubhouse in order to kill a couple birds with one stone. Among them is to get to know the people in the neighborhood and to try to get the word out about community building.

In the last week, we've had a large group of these bullies down at the pool, creating chaos and really pushing. I've tried to reason with them, I've tried to humanize myself and give them an opportunity to change and I think in the process somehow they see the word 'sucker' written across my forehead. After two days of trying to be reasonable, I've had to quote regulations and threaten to ban them. They are hostile and try to intimidate me while I am at work and around my own home.

The issue with work is that I am there until 10pm and I work alone. There have been a couple times where I feel that the two video cameras at the pool have been the only things that have kept me safe. This morning I came out to my truck to find that it had been pelted with fruit and I am incredibly frustrated.

I cannot afford to move, niether can my mother. To be frank, I would love to have the old neighborhood back and am still working on it. We have tried to get a neighboorhood watch going and nobody wants to step up and get involved. The neighborhood has suffered thousands of dollars in damage due to vengence vandalism and theft and many of us are feeling despair.

Would public video cameras be so horrible in this case? [yes, I agree Orwellian and creepy]

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

e-Rewards

Enrika — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:26:31 GMT

Anyone have any info on this? Are they good guys or bad guys? I wouldn't mind earning some Delta Sky Miles, but, like the oh-so-mentally-stable Michele Bachmann, I don't want my information used to determine that I need to be put into an internment camp should the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their ass and get back into power at some point.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 4 replies

RFIDs in every phone by 2010 - a win/win?

deborahp — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:24:18 GMT

I don't see this as a 'win win'. I see this as a pretty big 'lose' for people with cell phones if they can't opt out of being tracked 24/7, and if they can't opt out of having all of their personal data sold.

The first article is so much different in tone than the one from Wired (the second article)

What do you think?

'RFID in all new mobiles by next summer'

Win win?
http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39444914,00.htm

By Natasha Lomas

Published: 24 June 2009 09:13 BST

All new mobiles will be packing a RFID chip by summer 2010 - ultimately opening up the possibility of your phone also becoming the keys to your car or your house.

That's the prediction of Ericsson's VP of systems architecture, Håkan Djuphammar, speaking at the mobile infrastructure company's Business Innovation Forum in Stockholm on Tuesday.

He told delegates: "A year from now basically every new phone that's sold will have [Near Field Communication]. It's a two-way, bio-directional RFID communication link that makes this device work as a tag or as a reader."

Djuphammar said devices with RFID chips will have a secure environment on the SIM card where "trusted identities" or "secure elements" can be downloaded - enabling the phone to take on other roles, such as the keys for your car or house, or a credit card or concert ticket. He said Ericsson is currently working with a utilities company that has 700 separate unmanned facilities and around 15,000 keys - a logistical nightmare it wants to eliminate via the use of RFID-enabled mobile phones.

"They don't know really where those keys are," he said. "So they want to replace all the locks with RFID locks, put RFID-capable phones in the hands of all their personnel and then they can control the access to these sites."

Using RFID in this way would enable a mobile to be assigned to open a door for a certain period of time only - meaning the company could better manage access to its facilities, while also replacing the hassle of dealing with thousands of physical keys.

"All sorts of things will be enabled by [RFID] - a small piece of technology but with an ecosystem around it that opens up tremendous opportunities for innovation," he added.

Mobile phones could also soon become instruments of fraud detection. Djuphammar said credit card companies could make use of mobile user location data and IP mapping to ascertain whether a credit card transaction is taking place in the vicinity of the official card holder and thus judge whether that transaction is likely to be genuine or not.

"In some countries there's a lot of fraud with credit cards so therefore it's in the interest of the credit card issuer to be able to match the position of the phone that belongs to the person who has a credit card. If the phone's close to where the credit card is used the fraud risk is low but suddenly if the phone moves away from where the credit card is used they can be alerted to check that particular transaction - it's most likely fraud because now the phone and the credit card are separated," he explained.

Another example of leveraging location data is to create real-time road traffic maps generated by analysing the speed of mobile phone base station hand-off to ascertain how fast cars are travelling on roads. This data could then be sold to GPS device companies enabling them to provide dynamic travel information to motorists.

Djuphammar said selling access to mobile user information in this way would open up new revenue streams in a "win win" scenario for all parties involved - the end user, the operator and the broker who manages the sharing of that user data.

"That is a typical 'win win' where the operator share their assets/knowledge through a broker, and the GPS company can sell a service to the end user. The end user wins, the GPS service provider wins, the broker provider wins and the operator wins," he added.

====

RFID-Enabled Phones Could Let Credit Card Companies Track Users
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/rfid-enabled-phones-would-let-credit-card-companies-track-users/

* By Kim Zetter
* June 24, 2009

An Ericsson executive says all new mobile phones sold in 2010 will include an RFID chip that will allow owners to open their car or house door with their phone. A handy feature, no doubt, for some people. But the executive says the chip might also be used by credit card companies to track the location of cardholders to cut down on fraud.

Håkan Djuphammar, vice president of systems architecture for Ericsson, speaking at a conference in Stockholm this week, said credit card companies could make use of mobile user location data and IP mapping to determine if the owner of a card is in the same location where a card transaction is taking place.

“In some countries there’s a lot of fraud with credit cards so therefore it’s in the interest of the credit card issuer to be able to match the position of the phone that belongs to the person who has a credit card,” he reportedly said.

He said the chips could also be used to create real-time traffic maps and updates by determining the speed of a driver passing by mobile phone base stations.

Djuphammar said selling the information of mobile phone users to credit card companies and others would be a “win win” situation for all parties concerned.

“That is a typical ‘win win’ where the operator share their assets/knowledge through a broker, and the GPS company can sell a service to the end user. The end user wins, the GPS service provider wins, the broker provider wins and the operator wins,” he said.

Djuphammar did not mention whether users will be able to turn the chip off or otherwise opt out of the sale of their data.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

Supreme Court to hear case of a junior high school girl who was strip searched at school

deborahp — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:26:26 GMT

School officials strip-searched a 13 year old girl because they thought she might have prescription strength ibuprofen on her.

More at link.

Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=1

By ADAM LIPTAK
March 24, 2009

SAFFORD, Ariz. - Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on -
black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt - the day
school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in
eighth grade.

An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected
her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One
of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating,
Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, "they asked me to
pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said. "They made me open
my legs and pull out my underwear."

Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother
and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will
hear arguments on April 21.

The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just
how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance
policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide
important guidance to schools around the nation.

In Ms. Redding's case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the
Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority,
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, "It does not require a constitutional scholar
to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of
constitutional rights."

"More than that," Judge Wardlaw added, "it is a violation of any known
principle of human dignity."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 13 replies

Net surveillance and filters are a reality for Europe, too

Ed — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:23:45 GMT

The internet is playing such a key role in getting information out of Iran that attention has focused, once again, on how much Iran controls the internet within its borders. Iran controls the internet gateways into the country, and in 2006 the government outlawed any connection faster than 128kbps – until the policy met stiff opposition from business leaders and even members of the Iranian parliament.

It's easy to point to countries such as Iran, which the Open Net Initiative says maintains some of the most extensive internet controls in the world, while overlooking the increasing filtering and surveillance of the internet in Europe.

Yaman Akdeniz, the director of Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties, spoke at the recent Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum about the increasing number of websites blocked in Turkey. In 2007, the Turkish parliament fast-tracked legislation to regulate the internet, passing the bill in just 59 minutes. Supporters defended the legislation on the grounds that it would protect children. In two years, the number of sites blocked went from zero to 2,600.

But many of the sites being blocked have little to do with protecting children from inappropriate content. Blogger, Google's blogging service, was blocked temporarily because one blog was being used to distribute pirated videos of football matches. Richard Dawkins's site was blocked over complaints from Turkish creationists, and Turkey is one of a handful of countries in the world that completely blocks YouTube, Akdeniz says. The Turkish government had asked YouTube to remove videos seen as defamatory to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. YouTube's owner, Google, offered to block Turkish users from seeing the offending videos, but the Turkish government demanded the videos be taken down from the global site.Of course, whether in Iran or Turkey, the filters are ineffectual.

The Turkish government may be able to block YouTube on computers, but they haven't figured out how to block the service on Apple's iPhone. But it's not just on the edge of Europe, in Turkey. Let's look to the heart of Europe, to Germany, which has just passed a law to crack down on child pornography sites by adding offending sites to a DNS blacklist.

German net activists launched an e-petition opposing the plan. They needed to get at least 50,000 signatures in six weeks for the petition to be read in parliament, but they needed only three days to get that number. When the petition was closed six weeks later, it had 130,000 signatures, making it the most successful e-petition.

Instead of using filtering technology, the internet community suggested targeting the offending sites. Using leaked blacklists – such as Germany was proposing – net activists were able to get 60 sites containing child pornography shut down, by contacting international internet service providers, the internet activist and blogger Markus Beckedahl said.

The German government backed down on completely blocking the sites after civil rights and even victims' rights groups joined internet activists to oppose the plan. Now, internet users coming to a restricted site will see a government warning telling them viewing child pornography is a crime, but the user will still be able to access the site.

Child pornography is an easy target, and it has long been used as a rallying cry by internet censors. But we often don't know what is being blocked.

<aticle continues>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/24/kevin-anderson-internet-filtering

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Heads Up - Twitter data breach

deborahp — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:17:38 GMT

For those of you on Twitter -- big data breach involving Twitter right now. Twitter is disclosing personal email addresses in DMs (direct message; like a PM here). I just tested it out myself to see if it's true, and it is.

From the CFP blog: "If I want somebody to have my email address, I'll send it to them. I don't want Twitter giving it out for me. And most especially, I don't want Twitter doing it behind my back." http://www.cfp2009.org/wordpress/?p=242

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

privacy expectations...

barsnake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:38:43 GMT

what are your expectations when it comes to your personal privacy - what rights do you reasonably expect? where do those rights come from?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

A plan to create a new Pentagon cybercommand is raising significant privacy and diplomatic concerns

Ed — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:30:51 GMT

One of the pressures in cybersecurity is tracking-the ability to quickly run down the idea of an attacker. This goes against the anonymity aspect of the web where everyone can remain "concealed" behind an ip address. Anonymous internet access is probably one of the things that will suffer under the legall environment created by "cyber security" interests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31338666/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

What if you don't feel like you're being watched?

deborahp — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:16:11 GMT

I love this quote: "The airship is great because it doesn't have that Big Brother feel, or create feelings of invasiveness,"

So, so long as we don't feel like it's invasive, it's okay?

(more at link)
Are You Being Watched?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/201697
The blimp flying above your head may be watching your every move.

Eye in the Sky: Raytheon's unmanned blimp at this year's Indy 500
By Kurt Soller | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 11, 2009

At first glance, there was nothing special about the blimp floating high above the cars and crowd at this year's Indy 500 on Memorial Day weekend. Like most airships, it acted as an advertising vehicle; this time for the Fisher House, a charity focused on helping injured veterans and their families. But the real promo should have been for the blimp's creator, Raytheon, the security company best known for its weapons systems. Hidden inside the 55-foot-long white balloon was a powerful surveillance camera adapted from the technology Raytheon provides the U.S. military. Essentially an unmanned drone, the blimp transmitted detailed images to the race's security officers and to Indiana police. "The airship is great because it doesn't have that Big Brother feel, or create feelings of invasiveness," says Lee Silvestre, vice president of mission innovation in Raytheon's Integrated Defense division. "But it's still a really powerful security tool."

Until recently, Raytheon's eye-in-the-sky technology was used in Afghanistan and Iraq to guard American military bases, working as airborne guards against any oncoming desert threat. Using infrared sensors and a map overlay not unlike Google Earth, the technology scans a large area, setting important landmarks (say, the perimeter of a military base), and constantly relays video clips back to a command center. If a gun fires or a bomb is detonated, the airships can detect the noise and focus the camera—all from a mighty-high 500 feet.

After the success of the Indy 500 trial, the company is targeting police departments and sporting facilities that want to keep an eye on crowds that might easily morph into an unruly mob. "Large municipalities could find many uses for this [technology] once we figure out how to get it in their hands," says Nathan Kennedy, the blimp's project manager.

For now, cost might be the only thing preventing a blimp from appearing over your head. Raytheon won't disclose how much the system may eventually cost, but chances are it won't be cheap. For municipalities without a Pentagon-size police budget, the blimps' potential to display ads may assist with financing. Raytheon says local authorities could install a built-in LED screen to attract sponsors, generate revenue and defer operating costs.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Facebook Quizzes

christiev — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:00:13 GMT

I came across this article the other day on MSN:

http://tech.msn.com/news/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=19904552

I have often wondered about the quizzes I see circulating on tribe which often originate on Facebook. They seem to be asking questions mixed in with the rest of the questions that would be asked by someone doing marketing research. According to the article if someone on Facebook answers these quizzes the marketing companies can find out more information about them from their Facebook account and pass that on to marketing agencies.

From page 2 of the article:

" Ultimately, deciding whether you should take an online quiz comes down to a question of trust: Are you comfortable putting your information -- personal or financial -- into the owner's hands? Remember, even if you don't directly input data, it can be passed along. Such is the case with Facebook, where just opening an application automatically grants its developer access to your entire profile. And don't assume that the developer isn't going to use the information within.
"The very intimate and detailed nature of the information featured on Facebook profiles makes such a database very valuable to marketers," says Guillaume Lovet, a senior manager with security company Fortinet. "

I do not have a Facebook account, and this type of thing is one of the main reasons I doubt I'll ever open one.

I do take the quizzes that make there way over to tribe now and then, and I wonder if even those answers could be used by someone looking to gather information, even though our tribe profiles are much different than a Facebook profile (or at least we can keep any revealing identifying information from being on a tribe profile if we want).

Thoughts?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 15 replies

Surveillance camera upsides :)

deborahp — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:26:38 GMT

This is probably old news, but I thought it was clever and fun. :)

(I was looking for this quote on Dave Farber's page: "I don't know what is going on with the UK, it's like they're using 1984 as an installation guide." Then I looked at the message).

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200805/msg00088.html

In case anyone missed this clever turning of the tables, however,
here's the story of a music band who not being able to afford to
produce their video, performed in front of 80 of the estimated 13
million (public) surveillance cameras in UK, and then got the footage
by filing a request under UK's Data Protection Act.

http://www.arsgeek.com/?p=3961

Link includes the finished video.

"The Get Out Clause are an upcoming UK band who are currently
unsigned. They took a brilliant and I'm sure soon to be much copied
method to producing their own video. Unable to hire a production crew
for a standard 1980's era MTV music video, they performed their music
in front of 80 of the 13 million CCTV "security" cameras available in
England, including one on a bus.

They then used Britain's Data Protection Act to request the footage
that was shot of them. Grab some decent and inexpensive video editing
tools (say. . . an iMac) and presto! They got themselves a unique and
in my opinion quite interesting music video."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

“Virtual Strip Search”: Whole Body Imaging Campaign

deborahp — Thu, 21 May 2009 05:55:06 GMT

We can do something about this... I blogged about this as well, my post is below.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently made some surprising changes to the way whole body imaging is to take place at airports across the nation.

Prior to the changes, the TSA had said that whole body imaging, aka ‘the virtual strip search’, would be used only as a secondary screening tool, and that even then, it would be voluntary. Passengers would still have the choice between going through a virtual strip search and a pat down search. That is about to change. The TSA has announced that whole body imaging will be phased in as a replacement for primary screening, i.e. the metal detectors, and it will cease to be voluntary.

As a result of this announcement, many privacy and civil liberties groups have launched a campaign against the use of these machines as the primary method of screening (see links below).

As ACLU lawyer Chris Calabrese says: "A choice between being groped and being stripped, I don't think we should pretend those are the only choices. People shouldn't be humiliated by their government in the name of security…”

Please Help Us

Write a letter to Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security and let her know of your concerns. Here is her address:

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Keep it short, no more than a page. To see the text of the Whole Body Imaging Campaign letter, see the first link below.
Here are some topics that you may want to include:

• Request a 90 day rule making process that allows public comment on the issue
• Urge that the use of these machines be suspended until the privacy and security risks are fully evaluated
• The machines are designed to capture and record images. Ask how we are to know that storage and dissemination of these images isn’t happening, especially since the TSA has arbitrarily reversed itself on the secondary versus primary screening issue
• Ask that our basic civil rights and dignity be respected, especially when the vast number of passengers are suspected of no wrong doing
• Ask about medical risks, particularly to frequent travelers, pregnant women, people with chronic medical conditions, and children
• Ask that less invasive means of screening be explored (such as the chemical puffer machines)

EPIC’s campaign: http://privacycoalition.org/stopwholebodyimaging/
EPIC’s whole body imaging and air travel page: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
Congressman Jason Chaffetz’s comments on whole body imaging: http://chaffetz.house.gov/2009/04/congressman-chaffetz-seeks-to-ban-whole-body-imaging-at-airports.shtml
TSA page on whole body imaging: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/body_imaging.shtm
Budget Traveler’s Blog (note the comments): http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2009/04/in_a_shift_the_transportation.html
House Bill: HR 2027, use Thomas to search: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 7 replies

this makes me uncomfortable...

barsnake — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:14:09 GMT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html
~~~
President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

The FCC claims to be able to do warrentless searches of homes

deborahp — Thu, 21 May 2009 05:17:55 GMT

And if they spy unrelated criminal activity while they're there, you can be arrested for that.

(more at link)
FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/fcc-raid/

* By Ryan Singel Email Author
* May 21, 2009 |

You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.

That’s the upshot of the rules the agency has followed for years to monitor licensed television and radio stations, and to crack down on pirate radio broadcasters. And the commission maintains the same policy applies to any licensed or unlicensed radio-frequency device.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

Justice Thomas: 'a proliferation of rights'

deborahp — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:19:25 GMT

That's right everyone, we have too many.

I love this quote: “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Umm, last time I checked, we don't have either of those, but we do have a Bill of Rights.

Here's the link and one more quote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html

“Today there is much focus on our rights,”Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 7 replies

"Identity theft is not a soft crime"

Rocky — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:23:08 GMT

If ILLEGALS continue getting away with breaking the law then, they're being rewarded for breaking the law. The hypocritical double-standards have to stop. Just enforce the laws already on the books.

Read this article:

"Identity theft is not a soft crime"

"Let's put some context on this -- this is the fastest-growing crime in the country. Roughly 10 million people every year are victimized by identity theft....

"...he pulled a Social Security Number out of the air -- he simply made it up using the three digits for Connecticut as a prefix and then putting all the rest together. Little did he know that he was inventing the number of an investigative reporter, and so down the road, when it turned out that he had been running up bills on nine different credit cards, passing bad checks at Indian casinos, and when his mess made his way into my credit file during a refinance, I then set out to find the guy. Which I did, and working with law enforcement, managed to get him arrested and deported. Under this new ruling, he would not be guilty of aggravated identity theft, because by having pulled my Social out of the air, he did not, quote unquote, "knowingly" steal my Social Security Number."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/06/am_identity_theft/

* A response to the news: Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-identity5-2009may05,0,7732350.story

;

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

Prescription data held for $10 million ransom in Virginia

deborahp — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:42:15 GMT

Wow. Pretty brazen.

Hackers Want Millions For Data on Prescriptions
Theft of Va. Patient Records Claimed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050702515.html?hpid=sec-health

By Brian Krebs and Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 8, 2009

RICHMOND, May 7 -- The FBI and Virginia State Police are searching for
hackers who demanded that the state pay them a $10 million ransom by
Thursday for the return of millions of personal pharmaceutical records they
say they stole from the state's prescription drug database.

The hackers claim to have accessed 8 million patient records and 35 million
prescriptions collected by the Prescription Monitoring Program.

"This was an intentional criminal act against the commonwealth by somebody
who was trying to harm others," Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) said. "There are
breaches that happen by accident or glitches that you try to work out. It's
difficult to foil every criminal that may want to do something against you."

Although the hackers had threatened to sell the data if they did not receive
payment by Thursday, the deadline passed with no immediate sign that they
followed through.

State officials say it is unclear whether the hackers were able to view the
patient records, as they have claimed. If the theft is real, it would be the
most serious cybercrime the state has faced in recent history.

Sandra Whitley Ryals, director of Virginia's Department of Health
Professions, declined to discuss details of the hackers' claims and referred
inquiries to the FBI.

A spokesman for the FBI would neither confirm nor deny that the agency might
be investigating.

State officials learned April 30 that hackers had replaced the site's home
page with a ransom note demanding the payment in exchange for a password
needed to retrieve the records, according to a posting on Wikileaks.org, an
online clearinghouse for leaked documents.

"For $10 million, I will gladly send along the password," the ransom note
read. "You have 7 days to decide. If by the end of 7 days, you decide not to
pony up, I'll go ahead and put this baby out on the market and accept the
highest bid."

The program's computer system has been shut down since last week's breach,
but all data were backed up and those files have been secured, Whitley Ryals
said. Virginians are still able to get prescriptions filled.

"We do have some of the systems restored, but we're being very careful in
working with experts and authorities to take essential steps as we proceed
forward," she said.

The state-run database helps doctors and pharmacies track powerful narcotics
and painkillers to reduce the abuse, theft and illegal sale of the
controlled substances sold under labels including OxyContin and Vicodin. It
was set up as a pilot program in southwestern Virginia in 2003 and went
statewide in 2006. About 2,500 health-care professionals have access to the
data.

Emily Wingfield, chief deputy director of the Department of Health
Professions, said the database contained 31.3 million prescription records
as of Jan. 1. About 1 million records are added every month, she said.

State officials say they have no evidence that any personal information is
at risk, but they recommend that anyone concerned about possible identity
theft keep track of personal financial statements and periodically review
credit reports.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

SCOTUS: "Step Away From The Vehicle" Applies To Police, Too.

Enrika — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:11:14 GMT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/21/722660/-SCOTUS:-Step-Away-From-The-Vehicle-Applies-To-Police,-Too.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 8 replies

What botnets can find out about you - financial info, passwords, and more

deborahp — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:31:17 GMT

Here's a good argument for choosing strong passwords and keeping up with security alerts.

Researchers hijack botnet, score 56,000 passwords in an hour
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/05/researchers-hijack-botnet-score-56000-passwords-in-an-hour.ars
By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated May 4, 2009 3:17 PM CT

Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara have published a paper (PDF) detailing their findings after hijacking a botnet for ten days earlier this year. Among other things, the researchers were able to collect 70GB of data that the bots stole from users, including 56,000 passwords gathered within a single hour. The information not only gave them a look at the inner workings of the botnet, they also got to see how secure users really are when it comes to online activities. (Hint: they aren't.)

The botnet in question is controlled by Torpig (also known as Sinowal), a malware program that aims to gather personal and financial information from Windows users. The researchers gained control of the Torpig botnet by exploiting a weakness in the way the bots try to locate their commands and control servers—the bots would generate a list of domains that they planned to contact next, but not all of those domains were registered yet. The researchers then registered the domains that the bots would resolve, and then set up servers where the bots could connect to find their commands. This method lasted for a full ten days before the botnet's controllers updated the system and cut the observation short.

During that time, however, UCSB's researchers were able to gather massive amounts of information on how the botnet functions as well as what kind of information it's gathering. Almost 300,000 unique login credentials were gathered over the time the researchers controlled the botnet, including 56,000 passwords gathered in a single hour using "simple replacement rules" and a password cracker. They found that 28 percent of victims reused their credentials for accessing 368,501 websites, making it an easy task for scammers to gather further personal information. The researchers noted that they were able to read through hundreds of e-mail, forum, and chat messages gathered by Torpig that "often contain detailed (and private) descriptions of the lives of their authors."

(Comically, the report notes that 0.1 percent of Torpig victims love "exchanging insults" online, with another four percent spending their time looking for sex online. The rest are doing relatively mundane things like worrying about grades, looking for advice from doctors and lawyers, looking for jobs, and playing video games.)

Of course, the primary goal of Torpig is to steal financial information like credit card numbers and bank logins. In just ten days, Torpig apparently obtained credentials of 8,310 accounts at 410 financial institutions, including PayPal, Capital One, E*Trade, and Chase. The researchers noted, too, that nearly 40 percent of the credentials stolen by Torpig were from browser password managers, and not actual login sessions, and that the Torpig controllers may have exploited these credentials for between $83,000 and $8.3 million during that time period.

Interestingly, a large number of the financial institutions that had been breached required "monumental effort" in order to notify the victims, according to the report. In fact, financial institutions weren't the only ones—interacting with registrars, hosting facilities, and law enforcement were all "rather complicated," indicating that there's a long way to go in order to make notifying botnet victims easier.

Not becoming a victim in the first place is the most ideal situation, however. The researchers concluded that victims of botnets are usually those with poorly maintained machines and who choose "easily guessable" passwords. " This is evidence that the malware problem is fundamentally a cultural problem," reads the report. "Even though people are educated and understand well concepts such as the physical security and the necessary maintenance of a car, they do not understand the consequences of irresponsible behavior when using a computer."

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 2 replies

Bartcop.com on The New American Dream

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:04:44 GMT

http://www.newamericandream.net/index.html

The New American Dream

Feature Interview
The Weekend
April 17

Bartcop.com's Terry Coppage, from Tulsa:

"Well, as you might know, I've got a smart mouth, always had a smart mouth.

And in 1993 my boss said, 'Bart, you ought to try this Internet thing, it's brand-new.' "

Poetry:
by Doug Draime
by Del "Abe" Jones

Columns:
A Progressive Pondering Healthcare — Joe Mayer of Rochester, Minnesota
Who's Killing Americans? Is it Dick Cheney? — Jim Fetzer, of Duluth, Minnesota

Political Art by Ben Heine of Brussels

and some other stuff ....

Thanks for stopping by.

The Dream Team
http://www.newamericandream.net/index.html

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 3 replies

Amazon - censorship, lameness, and repercussions

deborahp — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

I've been following Amazon's recent debacle. Here's a link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/amazon-begins-to-rerank-affected-books-theories-swirl.html

Over the last weekend more than 57,000 books were 'delisted' from Amazon's search - the books weren't banned, you just couldn't find them very easily. And guess what the topics were -- 'adult' books, including practically every positive book on GLBT issues (the anti-GLBT books were still there). Other books that mysteriously disappeared were books about reproductive health and books with adult themes.

Twitter was all aflutter about it - and there was much discussion about how to retaliate against Amazon. (type in 'amazonfail' into the search engine of your choice and see what you get).

Amazon has since kinda/sorta apologized, but few are focusing on the much greater issue. Amazon and other large booksellers have a lot of power these days, and independent book stores are dying off one by one because they can't compete. I think what this latest debacle illustrates is that we could lose our ability to read books about a wide variety of topics and ideas, some popular, and some not.

I believe Amazon when they say this was a mistake (this time), but I also believe that at some point it might not be a mistake. I'm concerned... I'm also concerned that the Kindle might exacerbate the situation. In that case, Amazon controls the hardware, the software, and the book list.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 22 replies

"... we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in a statement amid charges that the department

Ed — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:52:06 GMT

"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in a statement amid charges that the department had done just that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/
-------------
I don't beleive a word of that. I think the whole thing is ludicrous.
1) Neo Nazis are big government anti-civil liberties communists (extreme left, not right, that is why they call themselves nationalist socialists) and

2) The DOJ has been a pro affirmative action political police force for years, pushing through civil intmimdation and criminal threat the political/FIrst Amendment rights of white males, the DOJ has not been unbiased at all.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 1 reply

PINs vulnerable to hackers

deborahp — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:39:39 GMT

Hackers are exploiting places where the PIN numbers are temporarily decrypted. This happens when the PIN travels through multiple hardware security modules. At each switching point, the PIN is decrypted and then re-encrypted.

Banks don't have a lot of incentive to overhaul the banking system because the burden of proof is on the consumer whose account has been hacked in this way.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to change your PINs often -- at least until the banks decide to do something about this.

(more at link)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/pins.html
PIN Crackers Nab Holy Grail of Bank Card Security
By Kim Zetter April 14, 2009 | 10:55:00 PM

Hackers have crossed into new frontiers by devising sophisticated ways to steal large amounts of personal identification numbers, or PINs, protecting credit and debit cards, says an investigator. The attacks involve both unencrypted PINs and encrypted PINs that attackers have found a way to crack, according to the investigator behind a new report looking at the data breaches.

The attacks, says Bryan Sartin, director of investigative response for Verizon Business, are behind some of the millions of dollars in fraudulent ATM withdrawals that have occurred around the United States.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

Obama, Rule of Law, Secrecy, and Justice

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:08:58 GMT

Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday April 14, 2009 10:00 EDT
The differing views of the "rule of law" in Spain and the U.S.
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Scott Horton reports this morning that, in Spain, "prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates [John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Doug Feith and William Haynes] over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo." Spain not only has the right under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture to prosecute foreign officials for torturing its citizens, but it -- like the U.S. -- has the affirmative obligation to do so. (Indeed, the Bush administration itself insisted just last year that the U.S. the right to criminally prosecute foreign officials for ordering acts of torture even in the absence of an accusation that any of the victims were American).

As Hilzoy argues, however, the primary obligation for these prosecutions lies with the country whose officials authorized the war crimes -- the United States:

It is a requirement of law, the law that the Constitution requires Obama, as President, to faithfully execute. He should not outsource his Constitutional obligations to Spain.

That the U.S. has the legal obligation under the U.S. Constitution, our own laws and international treaties to commence criminal investigations is simply undeniable. That is just a fact. Yet it's hard to overstate how far away we are from fulfilling our legal obligations to impose accountability on our own torturers and war criminals.

The barriers to these prosecutions are numerous, but one of the principal obstacles is that CIA Director Leon Panetta has been emphatically demanding that there be no investigations of any government officials whose conduct was declared legal by DOJ lawyers (i.e., the very individuals the Spanish are now investigating for war crimes). And it's not surprising that Panetta has taken this position given that at least two of his top deputies at the CIA are among those implicated, to one degree or another, in the torture regime, as John Sifton detailed earlier this month at The Daily Beast:

The New York Times reported that Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, has taken the position that “no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished.” Yet a number of CIA officials implicated in the torture program not only remain at the highest levels of the agency, but are also advising Panetta. Panetta’s attempt to suppress the issue is making Bush’s policy into the Obama administration’s dirty laundry.

Take Stephen Kappes. At the time of the worst torture sessions outlined in the ICRC report, Kappes served as a senior official in the Directorate of Operations—the operational part of the CIA that oversees paramilitary operations as well as the high-value detention program. (The directorate of operations is now known as the National Clandestine Service.) Panetta has kept Kappes as deputy director of the CIA—the number two official in the agency.

And why is it that Stephen Kappes was made the number 2 officials at the CIA despite his being in a key CIA position during the implementation of America's torture regime? Because the two most important Senate Democrats on intelligence matters -- Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein -- insisted that he be so empowered as a condition for their supporting Panetta's nomination, after both of them first demanded that Kappes actually be made CIA Director. Here's what Andrea Mitchell reported back in January:

NBC News has learned that Senate Democrats -- including Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, who are the incoming and outgoing Intelligence chairmen -- have privately recommended a career CIA officer to head the agency.

Democratic sources indicate that both have recommended deputy CIA Director Steve Kappes, a veteran CIA intelligence officer who is widely credited with getting the Libyans to give up their nuclear program.

Just to give a sense for how our political class thinks about torture, here is what Mitchell appended to the end of her report: "One potential downside for Kappes: Like former counter-terror chief John Brennan, some critics says [sic] he had line authority over controversial decisions involving interrogation and detention." So Kappes' connection to the CIA's torture program was a "potential downside" to his becoming CIA Director. A potential downside. Once Obama chose Panetta rather than Kappes, Rockefeller and Feinstein agreed to support Panetta's nomination only once they were given assurances that Kappes would become Panetta's deputy.

This Thursday will be a very significant test for how much influence the anti-accountability camp exerts within the Obama administration and for how serious Obama's pledges of transparency were, as that day is the latest deadline for the Obama DOJ either to release the three key OLC torture-authorizing memos, release them in heavily redacted form, or refuse to release them at all. It has been widely reported that a "war" has broken out within the Obama administration over their release, with key Bush-era intelligence officials -- such as Obama's top counter-terrorism aide John Brennan and ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden -- demanding the ongoing concealment of the memos. Those torture memos are reputed to be among the most vivid torture documents of the Bush era, and thus will almost certainly fuel the flames of investigations and prosecution -- both here and internationally. That is what has prompted the "war" over their disclosure. It's hardly a surprise that if you empower the very people most connected to the Bush CIA, there will be substantial forces blocking any attempt to bring accountability under the rule of law for the crimes that were committed.

Just think about what all this means: not only are we failing to investigate or indict those who authorized torture, but we haven't even reached the point yet where we've decided that these crimes are bad enough that those implicated ought to be barred from serving in the highest positions in our Government. While Spain proceeds to fulfill the Obama administration's duties to investigate and prosecute our war criminals, some of those most implicated remain in positions of high authority within our own intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies -- thanks to Senate Democrats such as Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Our political class has simply never come to terms with how severe are these war crimes and how acquiescent to and outright supportive so many officials from both parties -- and so many of our media stars -- were. That's why huge numbers, arguably majorities, of Americans want criminal investigations to commence, but our political class remains virtually unified against them -- notwithstanding that they are legally required -- because, as has been conclusively proven over and over, the last thing our political and media elites care about is the "rule of law." That will become more apparent as other countries, such as Spain, demonstrate that they actually take things like that seriously.

On a related note, Rachel Maddow last night potently eviscerated Barack Obama for his attempts to deny Bagram detainees any rights of any kind, and she and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff then discussed the significance of Thursday's deadline for the release of the OLC torture memos:

UPDATE: In comments, Jim White highlights a fact from Horton's story that I intended but neglected to mention: the Spanish "advised the Americans that they would suspend their investigation if at any point the United States were to undertake an investigation of its own into these matters." As White points out, that is how war crimes investigations are intended to proceed under numerous treaty provisions by which the U.S. has bound itself: namely, the country whose officials commit the crimes have the primary obligation to investigate and hold the criminals accountable. But other treaty signatories are not only entitled, but required, to commence such proceedings if the violating country refuses or otherwise fails to do so.

Thus, the only way to object to what Spain is doing here is if one: (a) suffers from total ignorance of the basic provisions of Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture; (b) believes that the U.S. has no obligation to abide by its treaties even though the U.S. Constitution provides that such treaties are "the supreme law of the land"; and/or (c) believes that the U.S. need not abide by rules we impose on other countries, such as when we prosecuted other countries' leaders for war crimes in the past. None of those is a particularly noble excuse.

UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan says that Obama, by not prosecuting Bush officials, is playing "a long game" which will eventually result in accountability for the war criminals, whereby Obama "hangs back a little, allows the evidence to slowly filter out, releases memos that help prove to Americans that what was done was unequivocally torture and indisputably illegal."

It's going to be quite some time before one can definitively prove or disprove that theory, but if, on Thursday, Obama does anything other than release the three OLC torture memos more or less in fully unredacted form, that will be rather compelling evidence negating Sullivan's speculation. Conversely, as I said earlier this week, if those memos are released essentially in full over the vehement objections of key intelligence officials, Obama will deserve some substantial credit for doing that.

UPDATE III: As sysprog suggests in comments, Sullivan's theory about Obama's secret plan -- that Obama intends simply to remain neutral when it comes to legal proceedings aimed at Bush's torture regime; that "he will not defend it, but he will not be the prosecutor either''; and that his strategy is to "allow the evidence to slowly filter out" -- is extremely difficult to reconcile with the fact that Obama has been ordering his Justice Department to take extraordinary steps to block all judicial accountability for Bush officials and to insist that Bush's interrogation and surveillance programs are such vital state secrets that any disclosure would "gravely harm national security."

Put another way, Obama has been far from neutral. At least thus far, he has been the prime agent working overtime to keep these illegal Bush policies as secret as possible and to shield them from any and all accountability.

Monday April 13, 2009 06:06 EDT
An emerging progressive consensus on Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

In the last week alone, the Obama DOJ (a) attempted to shield Bush's illegal spying programs from judicial review by (yet again) invoking the very "state secrets" argument that Democrats spent years condemning and by inventing a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim that not even the Bush administration espoused, and (b) argued that individuals abducted outside of Afghanistan by the U.S. and then "rendered" to and imprisoned in Bagram have no rights of any kind -- not even to have a hearing to contest the accusations against them -- even if they are not Afghans and were captured far away from any "battlefield." These were merely the latest -- and among the most disturbing -- in a string of episodes in which the Obama administration has explicitly claimed to possess the very presidential powers that Bush critics spent years condemning as radical, lawless and authoritarian.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for honest Obama supporters to dismiss away or even minimize these criticisms and, especially, to malign the motives of critics. After all, the Obama DOJ's embrace of many (though by no means all) of the most radical and extremist Bush/Cheney positions -- and the contradictions between Obama's campaign claims and his actions as President -- are now so glaring and severe that the harshest denunciations of Obama's actions are coming from those who, during the Bush years, were held up by liberals and by Obama supporters as the most trustworthy and praiseworthy authorities on these matters.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) -- which, to the cheers of liberals everywhere, was one of the nation's most stalwart defenders against the Bush assault on core civil liberties -- declared last week: "In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's." On Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann began his show by announcing:

President Obama‘s Justice Department now is not just defending Bush officials from lawsuits surrounding National Security Agency domestic spying, but seeking to expand the government's authority by making it immune from any legal challenge regarding wiretapping -- ever.

Olbermann went on to add that "the Obama administration is just flat-out dead wrong about this" and then contrasted Obama's campaign statements on transparency with his conduct as President and concluded: "That was then, this is now." Law Professor Jonathan Turley -- who, as a regular on Olbermann's show during the Bush years, was one of the single most-cited and praised sources by the netroots on matters of executive authority -- said that Bush officials should wave a "Mission Accomplished" banner because they "have Barack Obama adopting the same extremist arguments and, in fact, exceeding the extremist arguments made by President Bush."

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo surveyed a panel of experts last week -- including one from Center for American Progress, headed by Obama transition chief John Podesta -- to ask and answer these questions about Obama's argument in the illegal surveillance cases:

Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?

In a word, yes.

Sen. Russ Feingold -- probably the single most praised liberal politician of the last eight years -- declared himself "troubled" by the Obama administration's conduct on secrecy and illegal surveillance and said he would seek to enact legislation to limit Obama's powers as soon as possible. Nancy Pelosi vowed Congressional action to limit the Obama DOJ's position, proclaiming: "we can never have a repetition of what was done under the Bush administration or a continuation of that."

When asked about investigations of Bush crimes, Pelosi also said "we have a little bit of difference of opinion between the White House and the Congress" because the White House "wants to go forward" (Beltway code for allowing Bush crimes to go uninvestigated and unpunished) whereas Congressional Democrats "believe that we have to take a look at what happened[, since] there may be criminal activity." And early Obama booster Andrew Sullivan warned: "with each decision to cover for their predecessors, the Obamaites become retroactively complicit in them."

The Obama DOJ's conduct with regard to detainee rights at Bagram is provoking even harsher criticism among the favorite sources of progressives. The New York Times Editorial Board -- a leading establishment voice opposing Bush radicalism -- today condemned what it called "The Next Guantanamo" and lambasted Obama for advancing "extravagant claims of executive power and perpetuat[ing] the detention policies of the Bush administration." Charlie Savage, who won a Pulitzer Prize at The Boston Globe for exposing Bush's use of signing statements to break the law, in February described the Obama DOJ's position as "embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team" and as "a blow to human rights lawyers who have challenged the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining 'enemy combatants' without trials."

Last night, Digby lamented that "it's clear that the Holder DOJ is going to keep at least some of the legal pillars of the Bush GWOT regime in place" and that "it's profoundly disappointing that the administration is actually seizing more executive power in the case of the states' secrets argument and perpetuating a lawless prison regime outside our borders." The American Prospect's Adam Serwer complained this morning that "what the Obama administration is essentially arguing is that it has the authority to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial and without charges" and that Obama's position "stands in stark contrast to statements Obama made during the campaign."

International law professor Kevin Jon Heller of Opinio Juris said that "the Obama administration’s stance on Bagram is deplorable" and that Obama was trying to "create a legal black hole" in Afghanistan identical to what Obama vehemently condemned at Guantanamo. The ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz warned that the Obama position was creating "the new Guantanamo" and, if they prevail, "the Obama administration will continue to be free to create a prison outside the law." Liberal law professor Darren Hutchinson said of Obama's Bagram position: "This is the same argument that the Bush administration made" and, because of it, "Bagram could become the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay." And on Thursday, former DOJ official Bruce Fein -- one of the most eloquent (and widely-cited-by-liberals) authorities on the Bush assault on the Constitution -- extensively detailed what he called "an emerging pattern of mightily expansive claims of executive authority by the new administration" as part and parcel of "President Barack Obama's claim to czarlike powers in a perpetual global war against international terrorism."

Perhaps most significantly, Digby last night documented that Marty Lederman -- a hero to the netroots when he used his blog and authority as a former OLC official to mercilessly critique the Bush approach to executive power and is now Obama's number 3 OLC official -- emphatically condemned (last year) the Bush policy of denying rights to Bagram detainees: exactly the policy which the Obama DOJ is now defending. Digby wrote (emphasis added):

I continue to wonder where Marty Lederman is in all this since he went to the Justice department. There is nobody who was more critical of these same policies during the Bush years and for whom I have more respect. But I wonder if he is using his thorough analyses of the Bush policies to end them?

In the wake of the Boumadiene decision [Lederman] wrote:

As I noted below, the two most important questions the Court did not answer are:

(i) Would habeas rights extend to alien detainees held in foreign locations other than GTMO (such as Bagram)?

and

(ii) What is the substantive standard for who may be indefinitely detained?

The Court was not, however, completely silent on these questions; it provided hints about how they might be resolved. . . .

So, as for the first question: Would habeas rights extend to alien detainees held in foreign locations other than GTMO? That is to say, can the military avoid the impact of Boumediene simply by detaining or transferring all alleged alien enemy combatants to a different facility, such as at Bagram?

Short answer: No. . . .

Most importantly, the Court strongly implies that if, as in this case, the government chooses a foreign detention facility for the very purpose of avoiding judicial review (or perhaps even if the military retains a prisoner at a battlefield locale for the same reason), the Court will not look kindly upon such efforts. As I noted below, I believe the single most important sentence in the opinion might be this one: "The test for determining the scope of [the Suspension Clause] must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." The political branches will not be permitted "to govern without legal constraint" or to "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will" . . . .

During the Bush years Lederman's position couldn't have been clearer that detainees such as those who applied for habeas corpus at Bagram clearly were, should be subject to the writ. Read his posts in this fascinating exchange if you doubt me. He even suggested that the Bagram prisoners, who he admits have been held in the absolute worst of conditions, should be sent to Guantanamo where at least they'd have some rights. It's very difficult to believe that he would endorse this appeal.

Though Lederman acknowledged practical difficulties that might prevent full habeas hearings for Bagram detainees, he clearly stated that the crux of the Boumediene ruling applies to Bagram as it applies to Guantanamo -- the exact opposite of the claim the Obama DOJ is now pressing.

Even for the hardest-core Obama loyalists, it's rather difficult to attribute these increasingly harsh condemnations of Obama's civil liberties, secrecy and executive power abuses to bad motives or ignorance when they're coming from the likes of Russ Feingold, TalkingPointsMemo, the Center for American Progress, Nancy Pelosi, EFF, the ACLU, The New York Times Editorial Board, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, The American Prospect, Bruce Fein, Digby, along with some of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters and a bevvy of liberal law professors and international law experts -- those who were most venerated by progressives during the Bush era on questions of the Constitution and executive power.

That the Obama DOJ has repeatedly embraced the very legal theories responsible for much of the intense progressive rage towards the Bush/Cheney regime is now beyond dispute. The question of motive -- of why Obama is doing this -- is far less clear. Motives in general are notoriously difficult to discern. It's often hard to know one's own motives, let alone those of others, and one can only speculate about the reasons for Obama's actions.

There is, as Pelosi said this week, clearly a strong aversion -- one might say "desperation" -- on the part of the Obama White House to avoid anything that could increase the pressure to commence investigations and prosecutions of Bush crimes. As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick succinctly put it: "by keeping the worst of the Bush administration's secrets hidden, the Obama Justice Department can defer awkward questions about prosecuting the wrongdoers."

Preserving the President's general ability to block lawsuits alleging illegal conduct on the part of the President obviously enables Obama to invoke that power whenever there are allegations that he is breaking the law. The power to abduct people and put them in cages indefinitely without having to answer to anyone about what you're doing -- the power Obama is claiming he possesses in the Bagram case -- is obviously a potent authority that a typical President fighting a "war" would instinctively want to wield. And Howard Fineman was likely correct when he told Olbermann on Tuesday night that Obama is petrified of alienating the permanent intelligence and military establishments in Washington which might be alarmed by any attempt to abandon these vast powers, particularly where reversing course could raise the likelihood of prosecutions.

Ultimately, though, motives don't matter. Simply put, there is no excuse, justification or mitigation for advocating blatantly unconstitutional and tyrannical powers or claiming that secrecy shields the President from the rule of law. Nor is the faith-based belief that Obama is a Good Person who therefore deserves trust even remotely rational or relevant. As Professor Turley put it on Countdown: "It doesn‘t matter if you are a good person doing bad things. You are doing bad things." These secrecy and detention powers are among the most dangerous and tyrannical powers a President can seize, and Obama's attempt to cling to them is deplorable no matter his "motives."

It's certainly true that Democrats and liberals, in general, overwhelmingly approve of the job Obama is doing. That makes perfect sense. It is inconceivable that many progressives would say otherwise three months into the tenure of a new Democratic President. The country is still celebrating the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer in power. And there are many important areas in which, from a progressive perspective, Obama's preliminary actions are encouraging: budget policy, changes in tone and even mindset in some spheres of America's foreign policy, reversals of Bush's most controversial domestic policies, some excellent presidential appointments. By themselves, Obama's future judicial nominees can justify efforts to elect him. To condemn Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses is not to posit that Obama is the general equivalent of Bush or that his victory over McCain/Palin was irrelevant.

It's also possible Obama may (or may not) take actions in the future -- releasing the last OLC torture memos, granting full due process rights to Guantanamo detainees, offering habeas hearings to abducted-and-rendered Bagram prisoners -- that could substantially improve his record in the areas of accountability, transparency and adherence to Constitutional guarantees. If he does those things, credit will be warranted -- but only if and when he does them. And thus far, he has not. In most instances, he has done the opposite.

Whatever else one might say, the rule of law, the Constitution, and core civil liberties are the centerpiece of a healthy and well-functioning government, and nothing justifies an assault on those safeguards. That was the argument most progressives made throughout the Bush presidency, and the more Obama continues on the Bush/Cheney path in this area, the more solid the progressive consensus against his actions becomes.

UPDATE: On Friday, I suggested to Greg Sargent on Twitter that the White House should be forced to say whether Obama supports passage of the State Secrets Act -- legislation which would significantly limit Obama's power to invoke "secrecy" as a means of blocking judicial review of presidential actions and which (during the Bush years) was supported by leading Senate Democrats, including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as a response to Bush's use of the same doctrine. The Act was re-introduced in February of this year by Russ Feingold, Arlen Specter, John Conyers and others as a response to Obama's abusive invocation of the privilege in the rendition/Jeppesen case.

Sargent reports today that he posed the question and the White House simply refuses to say whether Obama supports or opposes the legislation. As Sargent notes, the Act "represented the consensus view of the Democratic Party a year ago" and this question thus "sets up an unappetizing political prospect: The President would be opposing the corrective that is favored by prominent Senate Dems and once enjoyed the support of his Vice President and Secretary of State."

UPDATE II: The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports that, like Sargent, he was "stonewalled" when trying to find out if the White House supports the State Secrets Act (in addition to Sargent, last week I also prodded a New York Times reporter to try to get an answer from the White House on this, and was told then, too, that they refuse to say what Obama's views are).

Ambinder, however, notes that his "reporting leads [him] to believe that senior administration officials, including the White House counsel, Gregory Craig, oppose the current version of the legislation" and concludes: "Make no mistake: Obama will be rolling back the spirit, if not the fact, of a campaign promise by opposing this bill." Those are pretty strong words from one of the best friends the Obama White House has in the press corps.

UPDATE III: The Politico's Josh Gerstein has a worthwhile piece today on the growing anger directed towards Obama among what he calls "the legal left." It begins this way:

It’s not just Paul Krugman anymore.

A growing chorus on the legal left is cooling toward President Barack Obama as a result of recent actions by the Justice Department vigorously defending the Bush administration in what it termed the war on terror.

I could do without the anonymity granted to a defender of Obama from the group calling itself "Habeas Lawyers for Obama" [though, given that it's a pro-Obama group and the source is somewhat critical of Obama, it isn't the worst grant of anonymity ever (this Politico article probably wins that award)], but other than that, the article is a reasonably instructive and fair examination of these growing conflicts.

Saturday April 11, 2009 08:41 EDT
Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now
(updated below)

It was once the case under the Bush administration that the U.S. would abduct people from around the world, accuse them of being Terrorists, ship them to Guantanamo, and then keep them there for as long as we wanted without offering them any real due process to contest the accusations against them. That due-process-denying framework was legalized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Many Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- claimed they were vehemently opposed to this denial of due process for detainees, and on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest the accusations against them.

In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp (where, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, they were entitled to habeas hearings), the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn't apply to them. The Bush DOJ treated the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game -- fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process. Put another way, you just close Guantanamo, move it to Afghanistan, and -- presto -- all constitutional obligations disappear.

Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue -- the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges. That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.

Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo. Notably, the district judge who so ruled -- John Bates -- is an appointee of George W. Bush, a former Whitewater prosecutor, and a very pro-executive-power judge. In his decision (.pdf), Judge Bates made clear how identical are the constitutional rights of detainees flown to Guantanamo and Bagram and underscored how dangerous is the Bush/Obama claim that the President has the right to abduct people from around the world and imprison them at Bagram with no due process of any kind (click image to enlarge):

. . .

As Judge Bates noted, the prisoners shipped to Bagram actually have even fewer rights than the Guantanamo detainees did prior to Boudemiene, because at least the latter were given a sham Pentagon review (the CSRT tribunal), whereas the U.S. Government -- under both Bush and Obama -- maintain that Bagram prisoners have no rights of any kind.

In the wake of Judge Bates' ruling that foreign detainees shipped to Bagram at least have the right to a hearing to determine their guilt, what is the Obama DOJ doing? This:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . .

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

In late February, I interviewed the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz, who said:

What happened was, these people were picked up in this global war on terror, were brought to Guantanamo in 2004, and once Guantanamo became subject to habeas corpus review, the administration basically, the Bush administration stopped bringing people there, and started bringing them to Bagram, and Bagram's population has shot up, and it's become in some sense the new Guantanamo. . . . And so what you have is you have a situation where the Bush administration, was free to, and the Obama administration will continue to be free to, create a prison outside the law.

The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions. Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all. The Bush DOJ -- and now the Obama DOJ -- maintain the President does and should have that right, and that's an issue that has been extensively debated. It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.

Consider, instead, what Barack Obama -- before he became President -- repeatedly claimed to believe about these issues. The Supreme Court's Boudemiene ruling was issued at the height of the presidential campaign, and while John McCain condemned it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," here is what Obama said about it in a statement he issued on the day of the ruling:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.

My, what a ringing and inspiring defense of habeas corpus that was from candidate Barack Obama. So moving and eloquent and passionate. And that George W. Bush sure was an awful tyrant for trying to "create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" -- apparently, all Good People devoted to a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution know that the place where the U.S. should "create a legal black hole" for abducted detainees is Bagram, not Guantanamo. What a fundamental difference that is.

Even worse, here is what Obama said on the floor of the Senate in September, 2006, when he argued in favor of an amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. I defy anyone to read this and reconcile what he said then to what he is doing now:

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal:

"Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks."

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. . . .

This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. . . .

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe "actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."

This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:

"To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. ..... The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury."

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the "great writ" -- a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

I yield the floor.

So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.

I'm not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out.

* * * * *

On a related note, the Columbia Journalism Review has a very interesting article tracing the origins of the "Obama/state secrets" controversy of the last week, documenting how it became a scandal, and examining which media outlets have covered it and -- more importantly -- have been ignoring it.

UPDATE: One of the things I always found so striking about debates over Bush/Cheney executive power abuses was that Bush followers who admittedly had no substantive arguments to justify those actions would nonetheless still find reasons to defend their admired leader: Bush knows more than we do and probably has secret reasons for doing it. Bush is a good person and well-motivated and there's no reason to think he's doing bad or abusive things. Rights for Terrorists pale in comparsion to other more important issues. Republican critics of Bush are hysterics and paranoids who are only criticizing him because they want to get on TV and sell books.

As of January 20, 2009, one no longer finds those claims at National Review, Weekly Standard, right-wing blogs and the like, but instead, finds them commonly expressed in Obama-defending venues and some liberal blogs. Scan the comment section to John Cole's post criticizing Obama's Bagram position to see how frequently this mindset is now expressed to justify whatever Obama does -- these are just a representative sample of actual quotes:

it seems much more plausible to me that Greenwald simply doesn’t have access to the same facts the current DOJ does;
None of us have seen the actual case files and can make informed judgments about whether revealing the relevant information in particular cases would actually pose a threat to national security. That applies equally to Greenwald, and he must know that; it makes his rant silly and intellectually dishonest;
But Obama picks his battles. You can be upset that he hasn’t chosen to make this one of them (I am too), but I’m not sure that it’s necessarily on the same plane as the economy, health care, energy independence, etc.;
look at Obama and tell us if you see a man who is interested in some kind of imperial all-powerful, unchecked presidency. what in his background, his demeanor or his other actions make you think he’s that kind of guy ? what does your gut tell you about him? he’s a power-hungry authoritarian who is seeking to grab as much power as he can ? bullshit.
I guess Glenzilla will end up on the cover of Newsweek and have an appearance on Morning Joe soon since he has now said effectively that President Obama is worse than Bush but he is just about to over play his normally spot on hand with his rhetoric;
Let’s also keep in mind here that one of Greenwald’s jobs is to get people to read his blog. It’s not like he’s doing this for Salon pro-bono.
It goes on and on like that (with a fair number of comments who disagree). My response to all of it is here. And Cole commenter Mary adds some important thoughts here.

Most amazing is that the specific comment which John cut and pasted into his post (without approving of it) actually claims that a reading of the Obama DOJ's brief (here - .pdf) somehow doesn't constitute support for Bush's position even though (a) the Obama DOJ filed a 2-sentence brief in February saying they support the Bush/Cheney position in full; (b) the principal point of the new Brief is to argue that the District Judge was wrong to reject the Bush/Cheney position that Bagram detainees have no rights of any kind; and (c) the Brief repeatedly asserts pure, defining Addington/Yoo propositions about the unchallengeable power of the President to make decisions about detainees.

To recap: Obama files a brief saying he agrees in full with the Bush/Cheney position. He's arguing that the President has the power to abduct, transport and imprison people in Bagram indefinitely with no charges of any kind. He's telling courts that they have no authority to "second-guess" his decisions when it comes to war powers. But this is all totally different than what Bush did, and anyone who says otherwise is a reckless, ill-motivated hysteric who just wants to sell books and get on TV.

Thursday April 9, 2009 19:32 EDT
TPM: "Obama Mimics Bush on State Secrets"
[Updated below - Update II - Update III (Sen. Feingold's statement) - Update IV - Update V]

I wasn't able to post today, but TalkingPointsMemo has done an excellent job in advancing the story of the Obama DOJ's inexcusable embrace of some of the most radical Bush/Cheney secrecy doctrines. First, here is the top headline at TPM right now:

The first TPM post then says this:

Working the Dark Side

Why is Obama following Bush's lead on state secrets?

That post, in turn, links to this excellent and comprehensive article on the controversy by TPM's Zachary Roth, which reports this:

Is the Obama administration mimicking its predecessor on issues of secrecy and the war on terror? . . .

Coming on the heels of the two other recent cases in which the new administration has asserted the state secrets privilege, the motion sparked outrage among civil libertarians and many progressive commentators. Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote that the move "demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called it "deja vu all over again". An online petition -- "Tell Obama: Stop blocking court review of illegal wiretapping" -- soon appeared.

Not having Greenwald's training in constitutional law (and perhaps lacking Olbermann's all-conquering self-confidence), we wanted to get a sense from a few independent experts as to how to assess the administration's position on the case. Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?

In a word, yes.

That's rather definitive (my legal analysis of the Obama position was set forth here, on Monday). The TPM article then quotes numerous experts lambasting the Obama administration, including -- most amazingly -- Ken Gude, a national security law expert of the Center for American Progress (CAP). That's John Podesta's CAP, one of the most pro-Obama organizations in the country (Podesta was Obama's transition chief).

Speaking to Marc Ambinder, Gude himself actually defended (or at least excused) Obama's first invocation of the state secrets privilege in the Jeppesen/rendition case back in February at a time when most civil libertarians were furious, insisting back then that the new Obama DOJ officials "deserve the benefit of the doubt" because they had been in office too short of a time to warrant any judgments being made. But so extreme and inexcusable are Obama's actions here that, now, even Gude pronounced Obama's position "disappointing" and described himself as "frustrated" and "uncomfortable" with the DOJ's actions. Moreover, to TPM, Gude "confirmed that the Obama-ites were taking the same position as the Bushies on state secrets questions" and added: ""There's going to be people who are very unhappy, and justifiably so."

This controversy is clearly growing, as well it should. These radical theories were not ancillary to the liberal critique of Bush/Cheney lawlessness but central to it. Last night on CBS News, Katie Couric repeatedly asked Eric Holder about this issue, and -- as The Washington Independent's Daphne Evitar noted -- Holder was forced to say that he has reviewed the cases where the Obama administration invoked "state secrets" and agreed with virtually everything the Bush administration did in those cases with regard to that doctrine, making clear (as Evitar put it) "that the Obama administration [with the possible exception of one unnamed case] is unlikely to depart dramatically from the Bush administration’s position on the use of the state secrets privilege."

The Bush administration's use of the "state secrets" privilege was the linchpin of its efforts to shield its criminality from judicial review and -- as Democrats, progressives and other Bush critics repeatedly argued -- was one of the principal prongs of its lawlessness and radicalism. Yet here is the Obama administration doing exactly the same thing and now admitting that they intend to continue to do so. Relatedly, Jim White digs up some election year Obama quotes to underscore what a betrayal of Obama's constant commitments these actions are.

Finally, Keith Olbermann continued his excellent and rather tenacious coverage of this issue last night by asking Nancy Pelosi about the Obama position on state secrets and sovereign immunity and he extracted a muddled though still unambiguous decree that she found it objectionable and would engage in efforts to limit Obama's asserted powers (we'll see how true that ends up being). Last night, Olbermann also had on EFF's Kevin Bankston, who -- along with Olbermann -- excoriated Obama for not merely embracing, but surpassing, some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses on secrecy and legal immunity for lawbreaking. On Monday afternoon, I asked the office of Russ Feingold -- who was endlessly vocal on these matters when Bush was President -- why he has been silent on this matter and whether he had any comment, and I've heard nothing back. In fairness, though, there is one impressive ally for the Obama DOJ: the highly prestigious and very well-regarded blog, RedState, which vigorously supports their position here.

Ultimately, the responsibility to check executive power and secrecy abuses by the President lies with the Congress. In February, numerous members of both the Senate and House -- including Feingold and Arlen Specter -- re-introduced legislation that would substantially limit the President's ability to assert "state secrets" as a means of blocking judicial review of his conduct. When Bush was President, that legislation attracted numerous Democratic co-sponsors -- including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clearly, and quite regrettably, that law is needed as much now as it was in 2006 and 2007. Accountability Now, hopefully in conjunction with others, should have a campaign very soon to help bring this about as well as impose limits on Obama's recklessly broad assertions of legal immunity.

One brief correction: in yesterday's post on my Cato report on drug policy, I provided the wrong link to a piece reporting on that event by Stop the Drug War's Scott Morgan. The correct link is here.

UPDATE: In addition to Roth's TPM article, also very worth reading is this analysis from The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, who says there "there is something utterly un-American" about Obama's position. As Roth concludes: "That looks like a pretty broad consensus in opposition to the Obama administration's position. And it's the opposite of change we can believe in."

UPDATE II: Just in case anyone had any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing, Robert Gibbs dispelled those at today's Press Briefing (h/t CarolynC and Sam Stein):

Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

That was followed by this amazing exchange:

Q. Before he was elected, the President said that the Bush administration had abused the state secrets privilege. Has he changed his mind?

MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with some suits, and the President will -- and the Justice Department will make determinations based on protecting our national security.

Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama "still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so.

UPDATE III: Last night (Thursday), Sen. Feingold's office emailed me a statement from the Senator in which he said: "I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct." He added that "it is clear that there is an urgent need for legislation to give better guidance to the courts on how to handle assertions of the state secrets privilege," and that he is now working "to pass the State Secrets Protection Act [which I wrote about here] as soon as possible." Feingold's full statement is here.

UPDATE IV: ABC News' Jake Tapper has a good write-up on this controversy and Obama's history of violating his own commitments when it comes to surveillance, accountability and secrecy powers, with this headline: "On 'State Secrets,' Meet Barack W. Obama."

UPDATE V: Jake Tapper has more, here, on the still-growing controversy. I have requests in to numerous key Democratic members of Congress who vehemently opposed the Bush version of the state secrets privilege -- including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, as well as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -- for comment on what the Obama DOJ is doing. I will post those as I receive them. There is simply no legitimate excuse for members of Congress who objected to Bush's secrecy and executive power abuses to remain silent (or, worse, to offer excuses) when Obama does exactly the same thing.

Keith Olbermann's scathing criticism of Obama's secrecy/immunity claims
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Several weeks ago, I noted that unlike the Right -- which turned itself into a virtual cult of uncritical reverence for George W. Bush especially during the first several years of his administration -- large numbers of Bush critics have been admirably willing to criticize Obama when he embraces the very policies that prompted so much anger and controversy during the Bush years. Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here. Just as revealingly, the top recommended Kos diary today (voted by the compulsively pro-Obama Kos readership) is one devoted to attacking Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney secrecy and immunity doctrines. Also, a front page Daily Kos post yesterday by McJoan vehemently criticizing Obama (and quoting my criticisms at length) sparked near universal condemnation of Obama in the hundreds of comments that followed. Additionally, my post on Monday spawned vehement objections to what Obama is doing in this area from the largest tech/privacy sites, such as Boing Boing and Slashdot.

This is quite encouraging but should not be surprising. As much as anything else, what fueled the extreme hostility towards the Bush/Cheney administration were their imperious and radical efforts to place themselves behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and above and beyond the rule of law. It would require a virtually pathological level of tribal loyalty and monumental intellectual dishonesty not to object just as vehemently as we watch the Obama DOJ repeatedly invoke these very same theories and, in this instance, actually invent a new one that not even the Bush administration espoused.

To be clear: there are important areas in which Obama has been quite commendable, and I've personally praised him fairly lavishly for those actions (see, for instance, here, here and here), but it is simply unacceptable -- no matter what else is true about him -- for Obama to claim for himself the very legal immunity and secrecy powers which characterized and enabled the worst excesses of Bush lawlessness. Yet in a short period of time, he has taken one step after the next to do exactly that.

The Olbermann segments, which are really worth watching, highlight the exact passages of the Obama DOJ's brief which I excerpted and posted on Monday, and underscore how intolerable the Obama administration's conduct in the area of transparency and civil liberties has increasingly become. Credit to Olbermann for highlighting this issue and commenting on it with such unrestrained candor. This should help galvanize greater action to make clear to the Obama administration that this conduct is completely unacceptable, and -- with Accountability Now, FDL and others -- I expect there to be some specific actions announced very shortly to begin pushing back, hard, against these serious transgressions:

UPDATE: Even better, Olbermann tonight will have on as a guest Kevin Bankston of EFF, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs suing Bush officials for illegal spying, which means Olbermann intends to cover this issue again tonight. Along with the ACLU and others, EFF has been truly heroic in defending the core constitutional liberties of Americans and serving as a key check on executive abuses. As I noted in Monday's post, this is what Bankston said on Monday after reading the Obama DOJ brief:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

Serious credit to Olbermann for putting on Bankston tonight and thus continuing his coverage of this story, despite knowing that hordes of truly creepy Obama worshipers (see here -- post and comments) who spent the last several years venerating Olbermann (and people like Jonathan Turley) will now suddenly declare that they are untrustworthy, unreliable, hysterical hacks, etc. etc. -- all for saying exactly what they were saying in 2006 and 2007, but this time applying it to Obama rather than Bush.

UPDATE II: One of Obama's most supportive boosters in the liberal blogosphere -- Booman -- emphatically condemns Obama for what his DOJ is doing in this case, and says "it is extremely disappointing, it is unjustifiable, and it is dangerous."

Different people are going to have different views about how vigorously Obama should be criticized, how early that criticism should begin, how much benefit of the doubt he should be accorded, etc. That's all reasonable. Moreover, Obama is going to be better in some areas than others, so one's views of his presidency may very well be shaped by the areas on which one focuses most. Progressives who focus most on domestic budget policy are likely to have a more favorable view than those who focus on civil liberties, executive power abuses, the rule of law and the like. That, too, is perfectly reasonable.

But where -- as here -- Obama embraces the very same extremist secrecy and immunity powers which provoked such intense criticism when Bush claimed those powers, any minimally honest person will react how Booman did. It is simply impossible for X to have been a hallmark of lawless tyranny when Bush did it but an understandable or tolerable action (or, worse, a routine fulfillment of one's duties) when Obama does it.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

This Week on The New American Dream

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:27:08 GMT

http://www.newamericandream.net/index.html

The New American Dream
... well ... because we're dreaming of Dick Cheney and George Bush in a big black car limousine motorcade with those little American flags on the front quarter panels on their way to prison

... we're dreaming of a USA truth commission and Cub Scout tours of the "secret" FBI and CIA

and some other stuff

This Week's Feature Interviews:

Monday - Timbre Wolf, a musician who moved from Tulsa to Hawaii

Tuesday - Al Markovitz, of Norfolk, Virginia, the Tulsa of the east coast, editor of the Blue Collar Review, "journal of working class literature"

Wednesday - Aimee England, the mayor of Tulsa — no, actually, Aimee lives in Michigan and spent over twenty years working in an independent, radical bookstore

Thursday - Lee Rayburn, radio show host, formerly of Air American Radio and also Madison, Wisconsin. [never been to Tulsa.]

Friday - Bartcop, of Bartcop.com, from where else? Tulsa.

Columns:
Steve Clemens of the Twin Cities
Lydia Sems from Atlanta

Poetry:
More from Ava Bird of Berkeley

and some other stuff

Thank you.

The Dream Team
http://www.newamericandream.net/index.html

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 0 replies

"Sexting" case - may be a harbinger

deborahp — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:46:41 GMT

I think people need to sit down and carefully think about how the laws should work with regard to child pornography, otherwise we're going to end up with a lot more cases like this one.

The article is a bit lengthy, but worth the read. The rest of it is at the link.

'Sexting' Hysteria Falsely Brands Educator as Child Pornographer
By Kim Zetter April 03, 2009 | 9:41:16 AM
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/sexting-hysteri.html

It was an incident that began innocently enough, but nearly ruined the life and three-decade career of a veteran high school teacher and administrator.

Rumors had been flying at Freedom High School in South Riding, Virginia that students were distributing nude pictures of each other on their cell phones. It's a phenomenon, known as "sexting," that's become increasingly worrisome to educators across the country, and Ting-Yi Oei, a 60-year-old assistant principal at the school, was tasked with checking it out.

The investigation was inconclusive, but led to a stunning aftermath: Oei himself was charged with possession of child pornography and related crimes -- charges that threatened to brand him a sex offender and land him in prison for up to seven years. Transferred from his school and isolated from colleagues, Oei spent $150,000 and a year of his life defending himself in a Kafkaesque legal nightmare triggered by a determined county prosecutor and nurtured by a growing hysteria over technology-enabled child porn at America's schools.

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 5 replies

CREDO, Working Assets, EFF and FISA

PaulaC — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:09:47 GMT

I originally joined Credo [ http://www.credomobile.com/mission/default.aspx ] becuse they had said that they would not abide by FISA. Later, I heard that it was moot because they run their network through Sprint towers, so any info can be retrieved from Sprint. I do remember reading that they also donated a significant sum to capmaign against FISA [ or for the legal fund to fight it ]. Now I see that the EFF is one of the beneficiaries of CREDO's nonprofit donations.

Does anyone have any new info on that whole thing? Have they backed off FISA but remained a freind of the EFF?

posted in Privacy and Civil Rights - 11 replies

Privacy and Civil Rights's topics - tribe.net

Law Seeks to Ban Misuse of Genetic Testing

Reason #832 why Facebook is EVIL

Detroit Bomber Reignites "Naked-Body Scanner" Debate

Privacy is for miscreants, according to Google CEO

Overweight avatars for overweight people?

tracking you through Google usage

AU: URGENT Action Alert

Sprint gives law enforcement customer GPS info 8 million times

Yahoo's price list for your info on cryptome

DEJA VU, see Ming Dynasty's WHITE FLEET, and wonder why PRC lets the USA invade and administer Bureau of 'Indian' Affairs, hahahaha, shazzle.

Great news! Lori Drew case finally resolved

Civil Debate on Civil Liberties and Police Cameras

DNA testing firm goes bankrupt - who gets the data?

Is Facebook a Paradise for Scammers?

Amnesty International

Smelling fear

ACLU

Free speech and the Internet

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

Privacy v. First Amendment in WA state ballot process

Former employers

Message from the mod on personal attacks, this tribe's membership, and more

Criminalizing Anime

TSA screening of Greyhound bus passengers airport style

Social network activism and the future of civil liberties

White House opens Web site coding to public

Privacy and social networks

Teachers Union blocks emails

Security boss calls for end to net anonymity -- Kaspersky's online police state

Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference - call for participation

Be prepared to hand over your social networking passwords if you want a job working for the city of Bozeman

Show you can balance or you can't fly?

Smart Grid and privacy issues

TSA security: Meauring heart rate, blood pressure, etc., at the airport

The G20, Twitter, and the First Amendment

A few good privacy blogs

Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official

*Another* massive FBI data mining program

Wonder what happens to all the stuff the TSA takes from passengers?

Project Indect - Surveilling the entire European Union

'Facebook Five' in Australia demand the right to complain about boss online

VoIP is definitely not private

Twitter user outs president’s ‘jackass’ comment

Legalize Hemp and Cannabis in California

Health care reform means more power for the IRS

Consumerist

Conspiracy Collage

Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists

Consider how you browse...

Are there any real privacy laws?

From the ACLU -- Quiz: What Do Facebook Quizzes Know About You?

Job Seekers

Surrendering Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border

white house SPAM...

BAN MIND CONTROL/ DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

Yet more TSA goodness: bend over, citizen!

BurningManLLC not so free, not so bohemian...

Building anonymity into the Net

flag@whitehouse.gov

Flash cookies = zombie cookies - you delete 'em, and they resurrect

Roadside testing for driving under the influence of illegal drugs

cash for clunkers...

Britain To Put CCTV Cameras Inside Private Homes

Facebook revolt?

Mapping drug use by testing sewer water

Using the latest military tech to police US cities

INTELSPY.COM

wave hi to mom = no diploma

Tagged.com

Medical records data breach law in California

Yellow Dots of Mystery

Social Security Numbers can be predicted knowing only DoB & state where you were born

'Congrats to Uncle C' – how his wife's Facebook page exposed new MI6 head

A tough one for me...

e-Rewards

RFIDs in every phone by 2010 - a win/win?

Supreme Court to hear case of a junior high school girl who was strip searched at school

Net surveillance and filters are a reality for Europe, too

Heads Up - Twitter data breach

Another massive FBI data mining program