Patriot Act News

Pentagon, CIA check U.S. suspects' bank records

2007-01-30T16:42:00.000-08:00

Gov't continues to use national security letters to investigate people thought to be terrorist supsects. Letters have been used in up to 500 investigations according to a recent CNN story.

Phone locks if owner gets to far away

2006-10-28T15:00:00.000-07:00

An interesting new security feature is available in a Japanese phone, it locks if the owner gets too far away. Facial recognition can also be used as additional security:

Here's how that works. Owners must first take at least three photos of themselves with the phone's camera. Up to 10 can be shot, in various situations — with and without glasses, with and without makeup, indoors and outdoors. Then, if the facial-recognition feature is turned on, before accessing the handset a user has to take a picture of himself with the camera. The phone analyzes features such as distance between the eyes and unlocks if the image matches the stored data. A separate function recognizes whether the eyes are blinking — in case someone tries to show the owner's photo to gain fraudulent entry. Not only that, a four-letter password can be added to this process, to guard against an identical twin getting unauthorized access.

The phone can be tracked via sattelite if lost. The security is a good idea since this phone, like other Japanese phones, can be used as credit cards or prepaid cash.

Credit cards & RFID

2006-10-23T22:32:00.000-07:00

Credit card companies are now experimenting with RFID. What sounded like a dubious idea to me in passports, now sounds almost ridiculous. Quoting from the Engadget blog:

"Our latest security problem du jour is that credit card companies are apparently issuing plastic that relays your digits wirelessly; as you might have guessed, security researchers are checking into this, and in a demonstration for The New York Times, easily hacked a University of Massachusetts computer science professor's newfangled RFID credit card. In short order (and with his permission), a researcher working with RSA Labs was able to steal the professor's name and credit card number that was being transmitted in cleartext -- thereby poking massive holes in Visa, MasterCard and American Express' claims that these card include "the highest level of encryption allowed by the U.S. government." Predictably, the credit card companies have already dismissed claims that the populus will be greatly affected by this hack. Brian Triplett, senior vice president for emerging-product development for Visa, told the Gray Lady: "This is an interesting technical exercise, but as a real threat to a consumer - that threat really doesn't exist."

Check out the tech report, from the NYTimes. It details the supposed RFID credit card vulnerabilities.

Thanks to a Stanford colleague for pointing out the credit card RFID story that appeared in the NY Times.

Makes you think again about what's in your wallet, doesn't it?

Expectations of Privacy and Search Engines

2006-08-09T20:01:00.000-07:00

A while back, the Bush administration issued subpoenas to major search engines like Google. Search engines collect a lot of information about us. They log our searches, often our IP address, and track sites we visit via cookies.

In November, Search Engine Watch wrote about a man who was convicted of killing his wife partly because law enforcement authorities discovered that he used Google to search for “neck,” “snap,” and “hold.” A less disturbing thread from WebmasterWorld reported that a woman clicked on her ex-boyfriends AdSense links so often that his account was suspended.

For more on privacy and search engines, see the Slate article by Timothy Wu.

Related to this topic...I heard a story about this on NPR today on the way home. I believe on NPR's Digital Culture...however I was unable to locate the story again as I missed what search engine doesn't track your IP address when you search. I found other references online to DogPile and Ice Rocket...but these didn't sound like the name of the engine in the story.

Did anybody catch it?

VA loses sensitive data again...

2006-08-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

Oops. Okay, maybe the first time was forgivable. Understandable even...but the second time? third?

"The disclosure comes after a string of recent data breaches at the VA, including the May 3 theft of 26.5 million veterans' personal data from a VA employee's home in suburban Maryland. The laptop and external drive containing that information has since been recovered, and two teens were arrested Saturday as part of what appeared to be a routine burglary.

In recent weeks, the VA has also acknowledged losing sensitive data for more than 16,000 veterans in at least two other cases in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Indianapolis, Indiana." [Source: CNN]

These people served our country. Can't their privacy and credit be protected at a minimum?

RFID e-passports

2006-08-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

Back from a slight posting hiatus (library construction, planning to move half way across the country, etc), I’ve been hearing a story that I think is worth exploring. There’s been quite the buzz in news and blogs that the US Department will begin issuing passports embedded with RFID tags in October.

There has been confusion mixed with equal parts controversy regarding whether the e-passports will have RFID tags or something called an ISO 14443 chip. RFID systems pretty much consist of RFID chips (also sometimes called tag or smart card) and a reader. RFID tags can be passive or active. Passive tags are powered by the readers, while active cards have their own power.

RFID are commonly used for tracking supply chains (such as WalMart). RFID has seem some adoption by libraries, although this has certainly been tempered due to cost of implementing the system. The e-passports will have a type of RFID tag that is passive and uses the ISO 14443 chip. This chip can be encrypted, but it doesn't have to be. The State Department does not plan to encrypt the chips used in the passports.

Public outcry is largely centered around the fear that these e-passports will be able to be read from a great distance. Some say 10 or 30 feet – although this distance could certainly be open to debate. Stoking the fire, Luke Grunwald – a German security expert – demonstrated how personal information from an e-passport could be copied and transferred.

In response to concerns, The State Department will:

"...include an anti-skimming material in the front cover and spine of the electronic passport that will mitigate the threat of skimming from distances beyond the ten centimeters prescribed by the ISO 14443 technology, as long as the passport book is closed or nearly closed." [Source]

Could the data stolen off an e-passport could identify American citizens in other countries? Could it lead to identity theft? This whole issue is certainly worth hashing out before October rolls around.

House Approves Patriot Act Renewal

2006-03-09T07:16:00.000-08:00

This story has been all over the news so I haven't been posting on it that much. Looks like the Patriot Act has been renewed pretty much. Read more here.

Port Deal

2006-03-09T07:10:00.000-08:00

The House Committee voted to block the port deal that would give control of major US ports to a UAE state-run company. I have to say that the Administration's defense of that Patriot Act as a necessary tool seems to weaken when you are willing to sell the administration of the ports to UAE. The Bush Administration views UAE as an ally in the fight against terror since 9/11.

Shipping experts have noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the United States, and have pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently.

Doesn't this boil down to the fact that this is an Arab company and people fear they might have terrorist ties, either now or sometime in the future?

More on this from NPR and The Washington Post.

Patriot Act Renewal

2006-03-03T00:19:00.000-08:00

The Senate has voted to renew the Patriot Act 89 to 10 yesterday (Thursday).

Port Authority

2006-02-24T20:05:00.000-08:00

Interesting story in the news lately about the port authority. President Bush supports tranferring control of 6 US ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Some law makers criticize this transfer citing a danger to national security. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have started legal action to stop the transfer. More on this at CNN.

President Bush points out that the ports have been managed by a private British company. NPR noted that the UAE company is state owned. They also report that the UAE company has decided to delay the takeover in order to give President Bush time to convice Congress of the merits of the plan.

6 US ports have been run by a British company called Peninsular and Oriental. The ports they manage are Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Links worth looking at:

From NPR: understanding the links between the US and Dubai
From the Washington Post: GOP Leaders Draw Back From Bid to Block Port Deal

Categories: UAE, Port Authority

Senators Compromise to get Patriot Act renewed

2006-02-10T07:08:00.000-08:00

Four Republican senators have crafted a deal to renew the Patriot Act, agreeing to strike certain provisions. Those same four joined with Democrats to filibuster the reauthorization of the act last December, saying the law needed stronger civil liberties protections. The agreement, announced yesterday, would extend the law for four years.

Several Democrats said the compromise lacks important civil liberties safeguards, and even the Republican negotiators said they had to yield to the administration on several points. With almost all 55 GOP senators supporting the comprise, and Democrats joining them, the plan appears to have enough support to overcome the Senate filibuster that has thwarted a four-year renewal of the statute for months.

Senators said they think the White House will be able to coax the Republican-controlled House to agree as well, even though House leaders have complained that senators' demands had weakened the measure.

"It was a bipartisan group of us that really believed we could do better . . . to protect civil liberties even as we gave law enforcement important tools to conduct terrorism investigations," Senator John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) told reporters. He said that he and his fellow negotiators had to make more concessions to the administration than they wanted to, but that Congress will monitor the law's application over the coming years.

The changes:
1) Restrict federal agents' access to library records, one of the Patriot Act's most controversial provisions. A form of secret subpoena known as a National Security Letter could no longer be used to obtain records from libraries that function "in their traditional capacity, including providing basic Internet access," Sununu and others said in a statement. But libraries that are "Internet service providers" would remain subject to the letters, Durbin said.

2) The Senate proposal would no longer require National Security Letter recipients to tell the FBI the identity of their lawyers.

3) The compromise also addresses "Section 215 subpoenas," which are granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Recipients of such subpoenas originally were subject to a gag order. The proposed Senate measure would allow them to challenge the gag order after one year, instead of the proposed change of 90 days. Sununu said the administration wanted the longer waiting period. "You now have a process to challenge the gag order," he said, defending the concession. "That didn't exist before."

Sununu said he and his allies were disappointed that the compromise does not require agents to "show a connection to a suspected terrorist or spy" before obtaining a Section 215 subpoena. Instead, a FISA judge would have to agree that reasonable grounds exist to believe the items being sought are relevant to a terrorism investigation.

The Patriot Act still has opponents, however. Senator Russell Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against the bill in 2001, told the Washington Post that the compromise doesn't "address the major problems." The Justice Department, however, has argued that the measure balances the need to stop terrorists with the need to preserve civil liberties. Sources: Washington Post, NPR

Question for librarians:
Does your library provide basic internet access or are you an Internet Service Provider? That's a distinction that is being made in this compromise.

Categories: Patriot Act, Compromise, Renewal

The impact of new CALEA legislation

2006-02-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

In Early February, I wrote a little about how colleges are fighting the new CALEA requirements

Last summer, the US Government updated the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and surprised everybody by including vague wording that might require ISPs to allow surveillance access to their networks. In a recent brief filed with the US Court of Appeals, the Association of American Universities, American Library Association, and some companies are asking the court to reconsider the ruling.

The University of Illinois estimates that it would take $13 M to comply with the requirements – on top of a $20 M upgrade that they are undertaking now (source: Arstechnia). Budgets at many universities and colleges can not handle an expensive upgrade and this cost cannot likely be absorbed into tuition fees.

CALEA was crafted specifically to regulate phone networks, which are closed systems. The Internet, on the other hand, is a distributed, global network. It is my opinion, CALEA should be applied to telephone networks, not wired or wireless networks of colleges and universities. It would also help if the impact of CALEA was a little bit clearer.

Does a school need to provide access at every router or only where the Internet meets the school's intranet? It's not entirely clear at this time. Certainly only providing access at the Internet/intranet location is more financially viable, but still a mess if you have to then have to possibly monitor every e-mail/communication leaving and entering the school.

Interested in reading more? There is material worth checking out from Educause

Categories: CALEA

Bill to Amend Patriot Act Introduced

2006-02-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

Senator Sensenbrenner, R-Wis, has introduced bill H.R. 4659 to amend the Patriot Act by extending the sunset of certain provisions of the Act. The bill, introduced January 31st, has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Categories: Patriot Act, Bill

Insights Into the Secret World of Eavesdropping

2006-02-04T20:15:00.000-08:00

An NPR story that is worth a listen: Madeleine Brand talks with Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping, about the investigation into the NSA program and other intelligence gathering activities.

Categories: NSA, NPR story

Wiretapping Battle Gets a Hearing in the Senate

2006-02-03T14:02:00.000-08:00

On Monday, Arlen Specter of The Senate Judiciary Committee, will open hearings over the super secretive warantless wiretap program. The hearings will help determine if the president's actions were legal or illegal. Supporters of the president say warrantless wiretaps are agressive and appropriate, while many Democrats chalk it up to presidential overreaching.

You might recall that the program was leaked in a report to The New York Times. Since that time, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have attempted to repair the damage, with mixed results as evidenced by recent polls.

The administration consistently argues that the Constitution gives the President, as commander in chief, the authority to do what he sees fit to protect the country.

The message from the White House clearly seems to be saying that Republicans are more committed than Democrats to protecting Americans against terrorism. Speaking at a National Republican Committee meeting, Karl Rove, suggested that the NSA wiretapping program would be at the heart of the GOP strategy in the upcoming midterm elections: "President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Is this accurate? Democrats in Congress, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, say that they want the president possible to find terrorists. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California, has pointed out that the White House has asked Congress to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) several times since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks...and Congress has always agreed. Democrats have some Republican allies, including Specter, and fellow GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.

NPR concludes that Democrats suspect the President's reluctance for amending the law -- and thereby ending the debate over the legality of the program -- stems from not wanting to lose the political issue, and possibly the precedent for expanding presidential powers in other areas.

We won't make any progress until we can overcome our very different views of what core issues are at stake. Is it protecting ourselves against terrorism regardless of the cost? We can't let fear allow us to give up core values, such as civil liberties, that make us American.

Postscript: Of interest to fellow Nebraskans, from NPR.

Categories: Patriot Act, Extension

House votes to extend Act

2006-02-02T05:38:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the House voted to extend the Act to allow time for the Congress and Senate to hammer out a deal. Later today, the Senate is expected to vote to extend the provisions until March 10. UPDATE: NPR carried this story too.

Reported in a number of news outlets yesterday, Senators who blocked the renewal of the Act in December are concerned with privacy and civil liberty issues:

Sensenbrenner said amendments approved in the House in December would add 27 new safeguards against potential abuse.

Democrats, however, said the issue wasn't whether to extend the Patriot Act, but how best to strengthen it without compromising constitutional rights.

"None of us want to be hit again," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). "But we do want to protect our civil liberties." (source)

This is putting all that stuff you learned in your government high school class into action.

Colleges Fight FCC's New Online Wiretapping Rules

2006-02-01T14:35:00.000-08:00

A group of colleges, libraries, and technology companies has asked a federal court to overturn a ruling, issued by the Federal Communications Commission, that facilitates Internet wiretapping. The 71-page brief, filed by organizations such as Sun Microsystems, Pulver.com, the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of American Universities, and the American Library Association, has been sent to the US Court of Appeals arguing that the FCC has overstepped its bounds.

The ruling these groups want overturned could require ISPs and colleges to rewire their networks so that federal investigators can more easily track individuals' Web browsing and e-mail use. College and library officials argued that the rewiring would prove prohibitively expensive, and that it would inevitably lead to violations of their network users' privacy. (Sources: CNET News & Wired Campus)

More on CALEA and its possible impact later...

Categories: Wiretaps, CALEA

House prepares to extend the Patriot Act

2006-02-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

The House will likely vote later this afternoon to extend the Patriot Act until March 10. The hope is that this 5 week extension will give the Senate and Congress time to hammer out a compromise.

Source about extension: NY Times

Categories: Patriot Act, Extension

State of the Union Speech

2006-02-01T04:10:00.000-08:00

I've always enjoyed State of the Union speeches. Why? I think I like the applause, cheering. President Bush surprised me by talking about US dependence on foreign oil and the need to explore alternative fuel sources...like switch grass and a few others.

He also defended his use of surveillance. I recommend checking out the resources on NPR about the debate over domestic surveillance.

If you'd like to read the transcript of President Bush's speech, it's also available.

Categories: State of the Union, Domestic Surveillance

FBI backs down when a librarian demands a warrant

2006-01-31T14:48:00.000-08:00

The Chronicle has reported that the FBI wanted to seize 30 library computers at a public library in Newton, Mass. According to the article, an e-mail threat had led to an evacuation of more than a dozen Brandeis U buildings on Jan. 18.

The FBI agents alledged that someone had used the public library's Internet connection to send the threatening e-mail. The library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told agents they could not take the machines without a warrant. Fortunately for her, David Cohen -- Newton's mayor-- supported her.

Finally the FBI officials sought a warrant for a judge while Glick-Weil allowed an FBI examiner to work with IT from the library to narrow down what computers might have been used. They decided that three of the computers might have been used. The FBI warrant allowed the agents to take away these computers and view only the threatening e-mail message as well as the messages sent immediately before and after that message.

According to the Chronicle article:

Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them.

"We were able to both protect public safety and also protect the rights of people, the sense of privacy of many, many innocent users of the computers," he said. "Had we given them the computers, they would have gotten to see e-mails from ordinary citizens doing ordinary things and would not have preserved privacy."

Some have lashed out arguing that officials handled the situation irresponsibly, but the mayor reported he received many positive comments from people who supported his actions. Personally, I think the library director is very lucky to have a supportive mayor.

Categories: Librarian, FBI, Warrants

Feingold to Gonzales: "You've got some 'splainin to do"

2006-01-31T14:28:00.000-08:00

Senator Feingold charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he avoided answering questions about the possibility of warrantless wiretapping of US citizens.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Feingold: "demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005."

In fact, the President did authorize warrantless searches on US citizens post-9/11. According to the Post article, Gonzales -- who was White House counsel at the time the surveillance began -- "acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort." The article concludes with a statement from Feingold, "It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do."

Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and will likely be asked to about the legal rationale behind the program.

This is a deception that begs the question, what else don't we know about? It's one thing to hoodwink our opponents, like Hitler at Normandy...but isn't it something else to hoodwink the American public as well? Or is it a necessary evil if we want to protect ourselves from terrorists and terror?

This again comes down to the same issue, how can we safeguard ourselves reasonably without sacrificing civil liberties?

Categories: Wiretaps, Legality

Judge Alito

2006-01-31T13:57:00.000-08:00

The New York Times reports that Alito is sworn in as Justice after a close vote in the Senate. 58 to 42. This is a victory for President Bush and he will address the nation tonight.

Here's some background on Alito's rulings from a previous post.

Categories: Alito

Countdown: The Patriot Act Deadline Approaching

2006-01-28T21:17:00.000-08:00

The Patriot Act is set to expire next Friday.

If you haven't been following the debate, this post will bring you up to speed on the upcoming countdown to the new expiration date of the Patriot Act. Congress granted a five-week extension at the end of the last year. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter this week urged fellow senators to either approve the agreement that's been hammered out with the House or pass another extension.

While the Act gives law enforcement new tools to fight terrorism, a bipartisan group of senators says the renewal plan doesn't safeguard privacy enough. House officials have said they're finished negotiating and are standing behind the earlier agreement with Senate bargainers.

Categories: Patriot Act, Deadline

Slippery Slope?

2006-01-25T21:21:00.000-08:00

In the previous post, I wrote about COPA and the Government’s request for Google’s record. Some say that this might be the beginning of a slippery slope. In November, Search Engine Watch wrote about a man who was convicted of killing his wife partly because law enforcement authorities discovered that he used Google to search for “neck,” “snap,” and “hold.”

The authorities did not get that information from Google, but from the man’s ISP. Basically, everything you do on the Internet is recorded on your computer – in your cache, in your browser history, and possibly stored by your ISP. Your ISP can see pages you are requesting and may store some amount of records that you’ve requested for a specific period of time.

You know, personally I’m glad they caught this guy. The concern over the Government getting involved in combing through search records sounds familiar doesn’t it? Battelle has a post that suggests that while:

"...the government intends to use these data specifically for its COPA-related test, it's possible that the information could lead to further investigations and, perhaps, subpoenas to find out who was doing the searching. What if certain search terms indicated that people were contemplating terrorist actions or other criminal activities? Says the DOJ's Miller, "I'm assuming that if something raised alarms, we would hand it over to the proper [authorities]." Privacy advocates fear that if the government request is upheld, it will open the door to further government examination of search behavior."

A phrase often attributed to Franklin is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What do you value more?

Categories: COPA, Google, Privacy

More on Google

2006-01-24T20:13:00.000-08:00

What is COPA? It was a 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The act required credit card or age verification for access to adult sites. The Supreme Court struck down the act citing a First Amendment violation and said that the Government should devise a less intrusive revision of the law or prove that the law does not violate the First Amendment.

The Department of Justice has argued that Internet filtering software was ineffective, the solution must be the COPA. The Government has subpoenaed Google, as well as other search engines, seeking a large amount of information from their databases. The Government hopes to prove how much pornography is returned in search results and show that we should return to COPA.

While other search engines complied with the Government’s request, Google has not. They have argued that it would violate privacy rights of users and also reveal trade secrets. According to an IIT article, a “privacy advocate said that it sets a dangerous precedent – it opens the door to subpoenaing Google and other companies for “national security” reasons, such as the IP addresses of anyone who searched for information on bomb making.”

More on the idea that this might be a slippery slope later.

Categories: Google, Privacy, COPA

Google follow up story

2006-01-23T20:23:00.000-08:00

Some of the news that carried the Google vs. Government story a few days ago failed to explain why the Government wanted the search records. This NPR story explains it well. Prosecutors argue that it would help them defend a controversial child pornography law.

Categories: Google, Privacy

For Librarian Eyes Only

2006-01-20T21:17:00.000-08:00

Okay, not really, but if you are a Librarian mark January 25th on your calendar. It's the National Patriot Act call-in day.

Categories: Patriot Act

Google's woes

2006-01-20T20:07:00.000-08:00

Does Google have woes? My colleagues and I were surprised to hear that Google and the Bush administration were squaring off over turning over records.

So far, it seems that Google is the only search engine to challenge the Bush administration. According to a Yahoo news reports, Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL have complied with the Government's subpoena without divulging personal information about their customers.

According to the Yahoo news report:

"The Justice Department issued the subpoenas last summer as part of its effort to restore an online child pornography law that has been blocked by the US Supreme Court. Although investors have initially punished Google's stock for taking on the government, Schachter and other analysts believe it could be a smart public relations move for the company."

The Government is seeking a list of requests entered into Google's search engine during a single week...think of how many queries this would include? Millions? It would also seek 1,000,000 randomly selected web addresses from a variety of Google databases.

According to Siliconbeat.com:

"The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites....[T]he government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is 'harmful to minors.' "

This will be interesting to watch as President Bush starts campaigning for the Patriot Act renewal. For a good background article, check out this article.

Categories: Google, Privacy

Ease of buying cell phone records

2006-01-18T20:07:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago a story broke about the ease of buying cell phone records. According to NPR, federal regulators are now investigating this issue and a federal ban on the sale of these records will be raised in the Senate.

This really is quite disturbing because maybe you don't want somebody to know the numbers you are dialing in your cell phone. According to a Chicago Sun-Times article:

"...the FBI paid Locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours, the police bulletin said.
Representatives of Data Find Solutions Inc., the Tennessee-based operator of Locatecell.com, could not be reached for comment."

While this could be a concern for some people, I also want to toss out there that people should talk less on their cell phones in public. I can't tell you how many people I have heard toss out phone numbers, names, where they are going and just way too much information. Sometimes privacy is a good thing people!

Categories: Cell phones, privacy

Disruptors

2006-01-17T13:33:00.000-08:00

According to a recent Washington Post article, the ACLU has objected to a "little-noticed provision of the latest version of the USA Patriot Act bill." The ACLU is concerned that the revision will give the Secret Service a greater lattitude to arresting people disrupting public events like the Olympics, for example.

Senator Specter, who sponsored the revisions, voiced surprise over the objection the ACLU had raised. According to Specter, the revisions attempt to clear up the authority that the Secret Service has at public events.

Among the suggested revisions, include amending text as follows:

"willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a
building or grounds where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting"

Maybe the President is tired of protests, both here and abroad?

Categories: Patriot Act Revisions, Disruptors

Information Sharing

2006-01-16T19:39:00.000-08:00

Today let's talk a little about Section 203, which is what I consider to be the heart of the Patriot Act. Basically, what Section 203 (b) and (d) attempts to do is to break down the wall separating criminal and intelligence investigations. The Justice Department has blamed this wall for the failure to capture and detail Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar (9/11 hijackers). The CIA had information that both men were in the U.S., but the FBI reported that it did not get that information until August 2001.

Supporters of this provision say that it enhances information sharing within the FBI. Opponents say that the failure to share information resulted from incompetence and misunderstanding the law. Critics worry that unrestricted sharing of information could lead to massive databases full of personal information about innocent citizens.
For more on this, read this NPR article.

Section 203 (b) and (d) are subject to the sunset provision, which means they are set to expire and must be renewed by Congress in order to remain in effect. Section (b) and (d) differ in what they do. Section 203 (b) amends federal wiretap law. It allows law enforcement to disclose wiretap contents to other federal law enforcement, immigration, national defense, national security official to the extent that the information will assist with his or her duties.

Section 203 (d) contains more of a general authority for sharing information when it is obtained in criminal investigations. The information can be disclosed to the appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign government officials for the purpose of responding to a threat. Threat includes threat of attack, grave hostile acts, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities.

This leads into some interesting areas for discussion. For example, is the problem really that we have to tear down barriers and share information? Or were the barriers not really there? How can we determine what information is useful to share and whom we should share it with? How do we sift through massive amounts of information to determine what is relevant and useful in a timely manner? If we share everything with everybody haven’t we obscured the very information we are seeking to tease out of massive amounts of data?

Then we have to ask where is this information stored? Are we warehousing information about innocent individuals in order to ferret out the bad? The warehousing of data is a reason for concern as there is plenty of evidence that people can’t protect databases.

The LA Times recently raised some questions in an opinion piece:

"First, what information, exactly, is being collected? Are other programs besides the president's NSA initiative ignoring traditional warrant requirements? Are federal agencies dodging weak privacy laws by outsourcing the job to private contractors?

Second, who has access to the data once it is collected, and what legal restrictions are set on how it can be used or shared?

Third, who authorized data mining, and is its use restricted to identifying terrorists?

Fourth, what is the collective effect of these programs on citizens' rights? Privacy certainly suffers, but as individuals begin to feel inhibited in what they say and do, free speech and freedom of assembly also erode.

Fifth, how do these data collection and mining operations deal with error? As anyone who's tried to dispute an erroneous credit report can attest, once computer networks exchange data, it may be difficult to verify its accuracy or where it entered the system. Citizens who do not know they are under surveillance cannot challenge inaccurate information that may become part of their secret digital dossier."

In an increasingly information rich society, what are the tools that can sift through, mine data and ultimately prevent terrorism? In this area, the Government could use the search expertise of librarians…well, maybe not now that they are deemed to be radical and militant. You can actually order a pin from ALA.

I've heard a lot of talk about disruptors lately. Seems like a slippery slope from radical and militant to diruptor. More on this disruptor information floating around blogs on a later post.

Categories: Patriot Act, Information Sharing, Section 203

Does Congress Matter?

2006-01-15T11:08:00.000-08:00

According to a Boston Globe article, Congress can only blame itself for the strengthening of executive power:

"But even as Congress bestirs itself to seek limits on the president's power, the question remains: How much can it do? Over the last half century, historians and political scientists observe, Congress's clout has waned as dramatically as the executive's has grown, especially in national security matters. And Congress itself is largely to blame."

Categories: Congress, Power

Section 805: Material Support

2006-01-13T20:18:00.000-08:00

The intent of Section 805 of the Patriot Act is to prohibit material support or resources to any organization that the Secretary of State has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

18 U.S.C. 2339B prohibits "providing material support or resources" to an organization the Secretary of State has designated as a "foreign terrorist organization." The material support ban was first passed as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The provision’s purpose is to deny terrorist groups the ingredients necessary for planning and carrying out attacks. Congress was concerned that terrorist organizations with charitable or humanitarian arms were raising funds within the United States that could then be used to further their terrorist activities. The provision outlawed any support to these groups, irrespective of whether that support was intended for humanitarian purposes.

The antiterrorism law, passed in 1996, passed as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The purpose of the provision is to deny resources to terrorist groups. Section 805 made it illegal to support terrorist groups. Section 805 in the Patriot Act extended the ban to expert advice or assistance.

According to NPR, many legal scholars, and some judges, contend that the provision is vague. The fear is that the provision will lead to guilt by association and criminalize inadvertent association with a terrorist group. Opponents to the provision argue that it stifles free speech

In 2003, Sami al-Hussayen, a student at the University of Idaho, was arrested and prosecuted under section 805 of the Patriot Act. Al-Hussayen was charged because of his work as a Web master for the Islamic Assembly of North America. His duties included supplying Web links to speeches by prominent Muslim scholars. Some of those links advocated criminal activity and suicide operations.

The jury found al-Hussayen not guilty on all the terrorism charges.

Categories: Patriot Act, Section 805

ALA plans Patriot Act FOIA request

2006-01-13T19:35:00.000-08:00

ALA is going to file FOIA requests to determine if the FBI has been investigating any of the leadership in ALA due to opposition some provisions of the Patriot Act.

Categories: ALA, FOIA

Cell Phone Privacy for Sale

2006-01-12T19:27:00.000-08:00

According to CBS,you can go online and buy other people's phone records. According to Chris Hoofnagle of EPIC, "These records are even being purchased on police officers and FBI agents." One business owner whose companies sell these records pointed out that these logs can help track down dead-beat parents, criminals, and run aways. However, this sort of information could also be abused by estranged spouses or stalkers.

Categories: Cell phones, Privacy

Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, Oh My!

2006-01-11T20:15:00.000-08:00

Pen registers have been around for a while. A pen register is defined as a device that allows law enforcement to track outgoing calls on a particular phone.

In 1979, despite strong dissenting opinions, five members of the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that the Constitution does not require the police to obtain a warrant for a pen register. The dissenting concerns of Justices Stewart:

"noted that pen registers "reveal the identities of the persons and the places called, and thus reveal the most intimate details of a person's life." Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed, saying, "Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts." "

An independent judge evaluates Government requests to grant Pen Register Orders. The accepted standard for a pen register order is that the order must be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The courts have concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to pen registers or Trap and Trace Orders. Basically this means that the Government does not need to demonstrate probable cause.

According to Smith v. Maryland, the numbers dialed into a phone at home is not private as the numerical information is conveyed to the phone company. The court held that the phone company records this information for “legitimate business purposes.”

According to a Harvard website:

“The Court has not yet held that the content of those communications may be revealed without violating the Fourth Amendment. One could imagine, for example, an extension of the Smith rationale that the user knows when he dials he “conveys numerical information to the phone company” because he is using the phone company’s switching systems. Presumably, the user also knows that when he speaks, he is using the phone company’s lines and switching stations since the user must speak using the communication devices of his telephone service provider. However, The key distinction between (1) the “content” of the communication and (2) the telephone numbers dialed, time, length and date of call, has led one commentator to coin the phrase “communication attributes” to describe the latter. We will rely on this distinction as we consider the treatment of cyberspace communications.”

In 1996, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. Department of Justice obtained 4,569 pen register or trap and trace orders, authorizing the interception of dialed number information on the telephone facilities of 10,520 people. These statistics cover only the law enforcement agencies of the U.S. Department of Justice, not including other federal law enforcement agencies or state and local police (Source).

Worth noting is that the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Of 2005 contains a Section 126, inserted by the House, that requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress "on any initiative of the Department of Justice that uses or is intended to develop pattern-based data-mining technology."

The bottom line is that you should not expect any number you dial into your home phone to be private. There have also been reports that the NSA has the capability to monitor the actual content of a large scale of phone numbers as well. Most recently, a former employee of the NSA (Russell Tice) alledges that the number of Americans subject to eavedropping by the NSA could be in the millions. According to a recent ABC news story:

"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

The same day The New York Times broke the story of the NSA eavesdropping without warrants, Tice surfaced as a whistleblower in the agency. He told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters."

Tice's credibility may come into question as he was recently let go from the NSA. I expect other reports may come up that shed more light on his possible motives for whistle blowing.

Clearly the Patriot Act expands law enforcement's ability to utilize tools at their disposal. The question becomes what picture is painted about you and would you ever know about it?

If you are interested in pen registers, here's some more information:

Categories: Patriot Act, Pen registers

Senators tout safeguards in Patriot Act 'conference report'

2006-01-10T19:55:00.000-08:00

The Patriot Act has received quite a bit of criticism of late, particularly after news that President Bush sanctioned secret wiretapping of US citizens without any type of warrants.

The President and Justice Department has been campaigning for politicians to renew the Patriot Act. In December, the Senate initiated a filibuster that has delayed a final vote on the bill for one month (with a February 3 expiration date).

According to a CNET article:

"Anticipating further discussion, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who has led the House's Patriot Act reauthorization efforts, announced last week that he would begin 'highlighting many of the dozens of civil liberties protections contained in the conference report that are not contained in current law.' "

If you missed the conference report, check it out here. Also worth a read is the joint statement from the House and Senate about the conference report.

Categories: Patriot Act, Conference Report

What does your Senator say?

2006-01-10T07:22:00.000-08:00

As more and more people are weighing in on what they think about the Patriot Act, why not find out what your senator is saying?

According to the Lincoln Journal Star, my Senator, Chuck Hagel, says:

"The greatest threat to freedom always is concentration of power in government," declared Sen. Chuck Hagel to explain his support for renegotiation of a bill renewing portions of the Patriot Act (LJS, Dec. 15). Hagel’s stand reflects a growing willingness among many to express their reservations about the Patriot Act."

If you haven't already done so, please consider writing your Senator.

Alito Confirmation Hearings

2006-01-09T09:23:00.000-08:00

Samuel Alito’s Supreme court confirmation hearings began today (you can watch them live on CSPAN). The limits of presidential powers, especially in wartime and on national security issues, are likely to be raised.

Many senators want to know how Alito, who in the past has advocated for presidential powers, weighs in on on President Bush's administration.

"There is no question that the question of executive powers in time of war and in the context of the terrorist threat will be central to the Alito hearings," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said last week (quoted in the Sacramento Bee).

I would expect Alito’s nomination will not be in jeopardy with the Republican-led Senate, even if some Democrats try to filibuster. Alito has been endorsed by The American Bar Association, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and has strong GOP support.

Despite GOP support, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle will likely question Alito about his views and writings on presidential executive powers and national security issues, as well as traditional hot topics such as abortion.

According to the Sacramento Bee:

"He should be asked about his views of executive powers in times of war, what role the Congress has, what role the courts have," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also a Judiciary Committee member, said in an interview Friday. "If he says, 'During a time of war the president can set aside any law on the books as commander in chief,' that would be a very extreme, absurd view of the law. Something short of that probably would not bother me."

For selected resources by and about Alito, check out the Library of Congress Law Library Reading Room. NPR lists some of his notable rulings.

(Image from The Washington Post)

Categories: Alito, Confirmation hearings

Poll about court-ordered wiretaps

2006-01-08T12:43:00.000-08:00

According to a news story called Poll: Most Want Court OK for Gov't Taps by Katherine Shrader, most Americans want wiretaps. The poll results are actually quite close, however, and given the margin of error, there may not be that much of a difference at all.

The AP-Ipsos poll says that 56% of respondents said the Government should have to obtain court warrants prior to listening in on overseas calls and e-mails of US citizens. 42% did not believe that court approval was necessary.

If the poll results accurately reflect the larger population it gets very interesting when looked at by age. About two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided. According to the article: "almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants."

Categories: Poll, Wiretaps

CSPAN discussion on wiretapping, terrorism, and more

2006-01-08T07:01:00.000-08:00

This morning, CSPAN Washington Journal hosted a discussion that includes Ruth Connif, Political Editor, The Progressive and Mona Charen, Syndicated Columnist. If you missed it, you can watch it online.

Ruth Connif is the liberal voice and Mona Charen the conservative. Both had pretty good points. Connif argued that the Government should get a warrant and have 72 hours after they start surveillance to obtain one. Charen argued that this simply is not realistic based on the amount of surveillance the Government has to do if they want to fight a war on terror.

There were any new arguments brought up in the discussion, but an eloquent restating of comments we've heard previously. Such as conservatives seeking to give President Bush the presidential powers he needs for the war on terrorism, liberals accusing conservatives of stomping all over the constitution, and conservatives alledging that liberals are extending due process to foreign nationals who might have connections to terrorism.

A couple of callers to the show commented they knew their calls were being monitored because of clicking on the line. I agree with Connif that these type of calls just demonstrate a lack of trust in the Government. If you think your phone is being monitored, check out Wiretapping/Eavesdropping on Telephone Conversations: Is There Cause for Concern?

Categories: CSPAN, Wiretapping

Analysts conclude Bush spying rationale is legally shaky

2006-01-07T19:59:00.000-08:00

A report by Congress's research arm, The Congressional Research Service, concludes "that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

The 44-page CSR report said that President Bush probably cannot claim the broad powers he has relied upon to order the secret monitoring of U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001.

The findings of this report has prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to call on Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to stop it.

Categories: Government spying, Legality

Democrats fear the Patriot Act?

2006-01-07T06:06:00.000-08:00

According to an opinion piece in The American Daily by Paul Ibbetson, Democrats fear (not hate nor dislike) the Patriot Act.

Ibbetson has a theory as to why Democrats dislike the Act:

1) He suggests that Democrats have been unable to think or devise an alternative strategies for the war on terror

2) and that the Act it self represents action

While this theory may apply to some liberals out there, I think we have seen that most Democrats in Congress support most of the Act. In question and up for debate are those provisions that may or may not violate civil liberties.

I think it is dangerous to say that just debating or questioning the Act means you are against stopping terrorists. This country has a long history of debate and free speech. These are the last things we should be willing to let go of.

President Bush, campaigning to make law permanent, said recently:

"When it came time to renew the act, for partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up and have agreed that it's still necessary to protect the country," Mr. Bush said. "The enemy has not gone away - they're still there. And I expect Congress to understand that we're still at war and they've got to give us the tools necessary to win this war."

While the measure was originally passed with bipartisan support, time limits were built in because:

"many lawmakers were nervous about its broad reach in the wake of criticism that the legislation impinged on civil liberties. Last month, with major provisions of the law set to expire on Dec. 31, the White House made a strong push to make the law permanent, but Democrats and a handful of Republicans balked, and extended the law for only five weeks, to Feb. 3." (Source: NY Times, emphasis added)

I cannot say that the Patriot Act is perfect as is and should remain as originally adopted. Congress has the ability to improve it.

Categories: Patriot Act, Democrats

Should you be afraid of the Patriot Act, Part IV?

2006-01-06T14:34:00.000-08:00

Previously we have talked about FISA, the National Security Letters, and "sneak-a-peak". Today, let's consider Section 215 of the Patriot Act – the so called “library provision” or “angry librarian provision” depending on who you talk to.

In library school, we hashed through the common bun and shushing stereotype. Almost a decade later the image of librarians may be changing. In 2003, a frustrated FBI agent wrote in an e-mail:

"The inability of FBI investigators to use this seemingly effective tool has had a direct and clearly adverse impact on our terrorism cases. While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us."

There have been stories of agents using Section 215 in libraries, but the Department of Justice and FBI deny that Section 215 has been employed against libraries.

In response to the Patriot Act, many states created confidentiality laws to protect library and other types of records. For example, an excerpt from Maryland’s law as it relates to library circulation records:

Section 23-107. Circulation records.

(a) Inspection, use, or disclosure prohibited. -- Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a free association, school, college or university library in this State shall prohibit inspection, use, or disclosure of any circulation record or other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that:
(1) Is maintained by a library;
(2) Contains an individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual; and
(3) Identifies the use a patron makes of that library's materials, services, or facilities.

Section 215 overrides state library confidentiality laws by permitting the FBI to compel production of business, medical, education, and library records without demonstrating probable cause. Prior to the USA Patriot Act amendments, the Act restricted the FBI’s purview to entities that contained travel information such as airline carriers, hotels, and vehicle rental facilities.

So, if an agent shows up on your doorstep demanding some circulation information or a computer, how will you know he or she is operating under 215? After all, the orders under Section 215 will not state their purpose and if served, the librarian can not disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the information sought)that the FBI has sought or obtained information under the section. According to the ACLU, this is the form.

In June 2005, Congressman Sanders led a tri-partisan coalition to try to keep Government from accessing library records without a warrant.

I believe, however, that the Sanders amendment (passed June 2005) is largely symbolic for the following reasons:

1) This was tied to an annual appropriations bill, so it only applies for one fiscal year.

2) This only applies to the use of Section 501 of the FISA to obtain records, so it does not affect other procedures or authorities that the Department of Justice might use to obtain library records, such as a grand jury subpoena, or a warrant based on probable cause.

3) This will only affect records held by the library. Since library computers are usually connected to the Internet, the interested party would likely be able to access information from the library’s ISP. The Sanders amendment does not affect the DOJ's ability to go to the ISP for records and information.

For more on the legal analysis that can support this, read this article at the Tech Law Journal.

Categories: Section 215, Libraries, Patriot Act

What is the Legality of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program?

2006-01-06T11:33:00.000-08:00

Do you think that eavesdropping and wiretapping of US citizens is a necessary fact of life in this day and age? Or do you think that wiretapping without warrants might violate the US Constitution's fourth admendment? A good resource to check out is the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. Their website states that they are a non-partison source of information. Recently, cfr.org asked five lawyers and legal scholars to share their thoughts on the legality of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program.

One of the legal scholars, Dakota Rudesill, suggests that:

"As a legal question, we are going to hear three interrelated debates. The first is about the Fourth Amendment. How do the Fourth Amendment's basic guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and its warrant requirement constrain congressional legislation and executive activity in the war on terrorism? The other debates are about inherent constitutional executive and congressional war powers, and how, in light of those constitutional powers, we should read together two statutes. Those statutes are the FISA law that governs electronic surveillance specifically, and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that authorizes military operations post-9/11 generally.

The Bush administration has advanced a sweeping reading of presidential war power, saying that AUMF has put the president's constitutional power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces at its maximum, and that includes broad authority for warrantless surveillance of communications with some foreign terrorist link. On the other hand, we can expect to hear from many on Capitol Hill a different line of argument, that the Congress can restrict executive power under the legislative branch's constitutional authority "for the government and regulation" of the armed forces, that Congress intended to regulate NSA and all wiretaps under the FISA statute, and that Congress did not intend to create a way around FISA in the post-9/11 AUMF. Therefore, the argument will run, the administration should have either gotten FISA warrants or worked with Congress to amend FISA. This is a profoundly important debate, and everyone interested in national security and foreign policy should pay close attention." (emphasis added)

Categories: NSA Domestic Surveillance, CFR

New expiration date for the Patriot Act

2006-01-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

Sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are due to expire February 3. The Columbia Basin Herald editorial board writes that the Act should expire.

They argue, that while convincing arguments exist for the Act, law enforcement should obtain warrants. FISA attempts to expedite the warrant process, but Government is not required to let you know if they obtained a FISA warrant to investigate you.

The editorial article in the Herald argues that:

"The Patriot Act seems designed to avoid warrants, which is a judge's permission to spy during a law enforcement investigation. Warrants balance the power authorities have to disregard our privacy and violate our constitutional rights. They help keep law enforcement honest. Any law removing the need for a warrant is in conflict with our Constitution."

Public support for the Patriot Act appears to be dwindling, which would explain why the White House has amped up its efforts to gain support for it. I think most people are like me and fairly torn. If these online poll results are accurate, it also points to a dwindling support.

On the other hand, some stongly support the Patriot Act, such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. On their website, they write: "Most of the proposals for reform mistake the appearance of potential problems and abuse (the myth) with the reality of no abuse at all--and, thus, the case for change has not been made."

Now is a great time to take part in the democratic process and voice your opinions by e-mailing your Senator or Congress representative

Categories: Patriot Act, Renewal

Should you be afraid of the Patriot Act, Part III

2006-01-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

Earlier I wrote on Provision 218. Today, I'm writing about the so-called "sneak-a-peak" provision -- Section 213.

Section 213 extends the ability of law enforcement to delay the notice of search of some forms of electronic communication if it is believed that notification would create an adverse result. The goal of this provision is to improve the Government’s ability to investigate suspected terrorists by granting law enforcement a greater latitude for clandestine operations. Section 213 largely codifies existing law enforcement practice so that it is more consistent with recent court decisions.

According to the ABA website:

"...the "adverse result" standard (defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2705), by virtue of its ambiguity, creates the potential for abuse. As a result, section 213, which is not currently subject to the four-year sunset contained in the Act, should, nevertheless, be carefully reviewed at that time."

Some have reported that 213 expands the Government's ability to search private property without notice, but this has largely been discounted as a myth.

PBS Online Newshour covered portions of the debate before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller urged lawmakers to renew the anti-terror Patriot Act. The transcript shows that many are confused about 213, the so-called "sneak-and-peek" provision:

"KWAME HOLMAN: Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold raised issue with another part of the Patriot Act he says overreaches, commonly referred to as the "sneak-and-peek" provision.

Section 213 says: "Any warrant to search for or seize property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense may be delayed if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the warrant may have an adverse result."

SENS. RUSS FEINGOLD: So when we're discussing Section 213, Mr. Chairman, we're talking for the most part about searches done to investigate crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism or espionage, right?

ALBERTO GONZALES: It can, but it also includes other kinds of crimes; that's correct. 213.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: There's no inherent connection to terrorism...

ALBERTO GONZALES: That's correct.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Vis-à-vis the power in section 213 of sneak and peek.

ALBERTO GONZALES: That is what Congress intended when I believe, when they drafted 213.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I'm glad we clarified that, because I think many people have a diferent calculation about the way - what they think should be permissible if we're talking about terrorism investigations. So people should be clear: Section 213, sneak and peek, is in no way delimited to terrorist situations.

KWAME HOLMAN: Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions followed, arguing delayed notification of a search warrant always has been part of law enforcement procedure.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Basically all it says is that historically you issue a report or an inventory of the search and you give that to the person once you conduct a search warrant contemporaneously with the completion of the search.

ROBERT MUELLER: Right.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: But the courts have upheld in the past -- and it is an established principle of law enforcement since I was connected with the Department of Justice -- that you could conduct a search under certain circumstances with court approval and delay notification to the person who's being searched. Hasn't that been true?

ROBERT MUELLER: Yes. It's been around the country various courts have upheld that process over the years.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: So this act simply says we can do it when we're investigating people that are trying to kill us, not just sell drugs on the streets.

ROBERT MUELLER: That, and it also regularizes the practice throughout the United States.

KWAME HOLMAN: Specific changes to the Patriot Act already are being proposed. This afternoon, Sen. Durbin, a Democrat, teamed with Idaho Republican Larry Craig to introduce new legislation called the Safe Act.

They say it's purpose is to restore civil liberties protections the Patriot Act has put at risk, without removing law enforcement's current surveillance powers."

So with Provision 213, the Government does have a right to delay notifying you...but at least you will find out you have been investigated...eventually. With FISA, you may get no such notification.

In the transcript above, the SAFE Act is mentioned. This Act should be of interest to Librarians. It is intended to amend the Patriot Act. One thing it attempts to do is to prevent the government from accessing library records without judicial approval:

"SAFE § 5 amends 18 U.S.C. 2709 to prevent the use of “National Security Letters” to obtain library records. National Security Letters are administrative subpoenas that are issued directly by the Justice Department without any judicial oversight."

President Bush's PR campaign

2006-01-05T07:05:00.000-08:00

President Bush has intensified his PR campaign to attempt to garner support for the war in Iraq. On Jan. 4, All Things Considered (NPR) led with a story about President Bush and Vice President Cheney pressing their “case for executive power in pursuing terrorists at home and abroad.” To listen to the audio, go here.

This morning, NPR carried the story that the President has invited former Secretaries of Defense and State to the White House for a 1-hour meeting related to the war in Iraq, terrorism, and security. Listen to the audio here.

Categories: PR campaign, Iraq

Should you be afraid of the Patriot Act, Part II

2006-01-04T09:57:00.000-08:00

A little while back, I blogged about should you be afraid of the Patriot Act?

In a series of posts, I want to explore various provisions that are the controversional provisions in the Act. Today, let's talk about Section 218, the so called FISA section. Section 218, amends and expands FISA. The Foreign Intelligence Survelillance Act, was a bargain struck in 1978 by Congress to allow searches without traditional warrants in what was believed to be a small amount of cases.

Since the Patriot Act, the number of FISA approved searches have increased dramatically. According to a Slate article:

"The FISA court approved 1,228 applications for warrants in 2002, up from 934 in 2001 and 1,012 in 2000. (The number of warrants issued was consistently below 1,000 throughout the '90s.) When asked by the House Judiciary Committee in 2002 how many of these warrants met the "significant purpose" standard but would have failed to meet the "primary purpose" standard, the DOJ hedged, saying they'd kept no statistics on the distinction."

The Government can now investigate any body quite freely without letting them know that they are being monitored. If you were investigated, you might not ever know unless you were prosecuted using information gathered with a FISA warrant.

The intent of Section 218 was to help the Government with foreign intelligence. As it stands right now, there is nothing to prevent Section 218 from being used on US citizens...maybe you, maybe me. We might not ever know. Some civil liberties protection should be built into this Act.

Categories: Patriot Act, Section 218

Patriot Act Powers

2006-01-04T02:45:00.000-08:00

The Patriot Act had provisions that were set to expire December 31, 2005. If you didn't follow the debate over the extension too closely, it got really interesting when Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner (chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) effectively rebuffed a six-month exntion of the Act that the Senate had approved. Sensenbrenner appeared to have been concerned that the current reauthorization of 16 provisions in the Act do not contain sufficient civil liberty protection.

EPIC (The Electronic Privacy Information Center) filed a FOIA request last year. They received few documents from the request until a federal district judge ordered the FBI to produce 1500 documents every 15 days. Read more about this here.

According to a report on GovExec.com:

"The previous batch of documents, delivered shortly before Christmas, show that the FBI's office of general counsel had sent to the Intelligence Oversight Board several complaints about agents' snooping activities. The board is comprised of three members, is housed in the White House and reports to the president.

Some of the complaints relate to how agents tracked their targets. One complaint, for example, showed concern over the tracking of a suspect's telephone calls. The agent continued the tracking even after someone other than the suspect started using the phone, said Marcia Hofmann, director of EPIC's open government project.

Another document shows that an FBI agent received an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that allowed him to access addressing information on a suspect's e-mails, but he ultimately accessed more information in the e-mails than allowed by the court."

EPIC does a great job utilizing FOIA. However, some of the records that have been released to them are not very helpful due to censoring. For example, a document about the number of NSA Letters is entirely blacked out. Although, I suppose it gives you an idea of how many there have been since the report is apparently 6 pages of a single spaced list.

Categories: Patriot Act, FOIA, Epic

Bush criticizes Democrats

2006-01-04T02:35:00.000-08:00

According to the Seattle Times, President Bush has accused Democrats of blocking a complete reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

The White House expects there will be a heated dispute over the Patriot Act and recent relevations that President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to monitor communications within the US that involved suspected terrorists. Congress has planned hearings on the NSA program later this month and will vote on the Pastriot Act early next month, when the current extension to the Act expires.

Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, said:

"Contrary to the president's misleading comments, nobody wants to see the Patriot Act expire," Feingold said. "We want common-sense changes to the act that would give the government the power to combat terrorism while protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens."

Let your views be known by writing to your representative here.

Categories: Patriot Act, Extension

ID thief uses sex registry in scam

2006-01-03T21:35:00.000-08:00

A Canadian law blog reports an interesting story that appeared on Yahoo news recently:

"Police in Arkansas have arrested a man for using information gleaned from the state's sex offender registry to get credit cards and tax refunds in the names of those offenders. He was busted at a routine traffic stop when the police officer noticed unusual files in the person's car."

Apparently he scammed about $20,000 in credit cards using the names of registered sex offenders.

Since I have misplaced the URL for the Canadian blog, here's another.

Categories: Privacy, Scam

The little red book hoax

2006-01-02T19:52:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, a story burned up the library listservs about a student who reported a visit from agents after he borrowed Mao's book via Inter Library Loan (ILL). You know, I wasn't going to write about this hoax, but the story is still popping up!

Boing Boing has a good post on the story. Now originally a Mass. paper reported:

"The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further."

The follow up story is here.

If you believe this article, it appears the student was seeking attention:

"When I came back, like wow, there's this circus coming on. I saw my cell phone, and I see like, wow, I have something like 75 messages and like something like 87 missed calls," he said. "Wow, I was popular. I usually get one or probably two a week and that's about it, and I usually pick them up."

Let's talk about the fact that many of librarians suspected the story was a hoax before it came out in the papers. How would ILL's be monitored? Through CONTU? Through OCLC? If though OCLC, how would agents link up the name of the student with the book?

Many people were willing to believe it, however. I think because there is a sense that the Government has been all too willing to trample over people's privacy and rights.

There have been stories from libraries that have reported visits from agents...although the Government has also stated that they have never made use of provision 215 of the Patriot Act.

I think the biggest problem with the Patriot Act is the gag order that accompanies it. Maybe they think a librarian would notify a patron if they were being investigated? Maybe some would, since librarians recently earned the adjectives of radical and militant.

Maybe this is better than the bun and shushing stereotype?

Categories: Patriot Act, Hoax

FISA in the news

2006-01-02T02:33:00.000-08:00

According to a 2004 FISA report made to Congress, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court received 1758 applications for electronic surveillance and physical search.

The court approved 1754 applications. Three of the applications were withdrawn by the Government prior to the Court ruling on them. The Government withdrew four of the applications and resubmitted one. Basically, the FISA court did not deny any application made by the Government, although the report does say that it "made substantive modifications to the Government's proposed orders in 94 applications presented to the Court."

On December 21, the Washington Post reported that one of the FISA judges resigned. From that article:

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation."

An anonymous source quoted in the article said, "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

You can read more about FISA here, here and here.

Categories: FISA Court

Sacrificing civil liberties?

2006-01-02T01:23:00.000-08:00

Sherry Colb, Professor and Frederick B. Lacey Scholar at Rutgers Law School, has an interesting opinion piece on FindLaw's Legal Commentary.

Aside from providing a good background discussion on warrants, she explores the impact 9/11 had on warrant requirements. She writes:

"...we now know that the problem on September 11th was not the failure to have gathered intelligence. It was the failure to read the intelligence we already had (about flight schools and planned airplane attacks on the World Trade Center towers), to which the administration had ready access. The problem, in other words, was too much -- and poorly organized -- information, rather than not enough. The continuing broad surveillance of U.S. citizens, without oversight, thus promises only to aggravate matters."

She concludes that:

"The warrant requirement is a critical component of our democracy. Right now, it ensures that someone outside of the Bush Administration might be in a position to criticize and veto decisions that could be biased, mistaken, and ultimately fatal to the freedom that Bush and his critics alike hold dear."

You know, as a librarian I feel I am expected to come down firmly against the Patriot Act, however, I find myself quite torn because I think some of provisions in the Act are a good thing (like getting various intelligence agencies sharing information).

Did law enforcement have the tools they needed before 9/11? Review a speech by President Bush from 2001. He says they didn't.

Where is the balance to draw between liberty and security? The Cato Institute has an article, dating from September 18, 2001, that argues: "the answer is not to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens to safeguard citizens from terrorists' atrocities."

Can we prevent terrorism, without sacrificing civil liberties?

Categories: Civil Liberties, Warrants

New Year's Resolution: Protect your privacy

2006-01-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

Chris Hoofnagle offers some great tips on protecting your privacy. Some I've done, but some sound like great new year resolutions.

Top on your list should be getting all those annoying credit card offers stopped. I mean, come on, how many credit cards can you possibly take and how many do you get?

My one-year old recently got an endless supply of credit card offers from a major credit card company. The company didn't want to stop sending the offers unless I supplied them with my name, social security number, etc. I mean come on...They finally removed his name, which they had misspelled, without collecting information about me. I also didn't offer to correct their misspelling. It makes me wonder where they got it though...

Anyway, here's one example of a great suggestion from Mr. Hoofnagle:

"KEEP YOUR BANKING RECORDS PRIVATE. Under federal law, your bank can sell your account information, including your bank balances, unless to direct them not to. Call all the banks that you use and ask to opt out from all information sharing."

Happy new year everybody!

Categories: Privacy

Debating the Patriot Act

2005-12-31T15:32:00.000-08:00

NPR has some great background segments on the Patriot Act called Debating the Patriot Act. From the site:

"The Senate has rejected attempts to reauthorize key surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act, dealing a major setback to the Bush administration. The 16 provisions in question, including those authorizing secret searches of records and roving wiretaps, are set to expire Dec. 31. The House approved the provisions' renewal with some modifications, but Senate opponents said those changes didn't go far enough to protect civil liberties."

Worth checking out to get a good idea of the background and what's coming down the pike.

Investigation launched into leak of NSA spying

2005-12-31T09:12:00.000-08:00

The CBC (The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) reported on December 30 that the US Justice Department is launching an investigation to determine if President George Bush ordered a secret eavesdropping program aimed at American citizens.

According to the CBC article, The New York Times:

"...reported earlier this month that, over the last three years, NSA has monitored the e-mails, telephone calls, and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the U.S. without warrants."

President Bush has defended the program stating that only people with a "clear link" to al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. Read more about this story here.

NSA & cookie debacle

2005-12-30T21:29:00.000-08:00

CNN reported that the NSA left banned cookies on computers of people who visited the NSA website.

According to the CNN article, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies unless there is a compelling need. A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy...so read the privacy policies on those gov't websites folks if you worry about cookie use.

Better yet, regularly delete all cookies from your computer. Read more about cookies on Howstuffworks.com

(Cookie picture from howstuffworks.com)

Should you be worried about the Patriot Act?

2005-12-30T20:16:00.000-08:00

Most people haven't read the extremely long act, but if you haven't you probably should. If you want a quick and dirty summary, check out this article at Slate. While section 215, often called the "library provision," has garnered probably more attention than any other portion of the act, the federal letters are probably more important.

According to a recent Washington Post article, the FBI now issues some 30,000 national security letters each year. These letters can be used to gather records, such as telephone call logs and financial documents.

If I were to worry over any portion of the Act, I would spend some time reading Section 505. EFF says 505 should sunset. Others say the letters allow the FBI to focus their investigations.

Bush signs Patriot Act reauthorization

2005-12-30T17:57:00.000-08:00

As reported in the Miami Herald, Bush signed an extension for the Patriot Act for 30 days. This is significant because many aspects of the Act were going to expire at the end of this year.

Patriot Act

2005-12-30T16:07:00.000-08:00

This blog attempts to present unbiased information about the Patriot Act. This is harder than I first thought, since a simple Google search brings up search results that have groups active in the discussion about the Patriot Act.

To get started, it's probably a good idea to brush up on exactly what the Patriot act is. You can read about it at the Thomas website, that is hosted by the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:

Incidentally, the Thomas website is a great place to find legislative information.

Categories: Patriot Act, Legislation