sorry, national security trumps personal privacy On Jan 19, 7:53 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > FBI Collected Phone Records Illegally"The FBI illegally collected more than > 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism > emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to > provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI > officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions…. E-mails > obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside > FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place > to protect civil liberties.” (Washington Post, Tuesday)Our privacy is such a > pain in their necks.Ignoring Real Privacy ProblemsByJames Plummer• December > 2000 • Volume: 50 • Issue: 12James Plummeris a policy analyst with Consumer > Alert, a nonpartisan market-oriented consumer group based in Washington, > D.C.The folks who make up the behemoth known as the federal government have > been fretting about privacy, especially Privacy in the Information Age. > Proposed commissions, innumerable conferences, and government reports hype > the “danger” posed by online booksellers’ keeping a list of your favorite > authors or your insurance company’s knowing if you’re sick. > All this fretting serves as so much smoke and mirrors for the very real > violations of personal privacy perpetrated by the ever-growing state. Let’s > take a quick look at ten issues that many self-proclaimed privacy advocates > seem to dismiss as less egregious thanamazon.comhaving the gall to recommend > I buy a Bill Hicks CD.1. Federal Web sites. The hypocrisy is perhaps most > clearly evident in the privacy practices of government agencies. The Federal > Trade Commission (FTC) is pressuring private e-commerce companies to follow > stringent rules regarding the collection and use of consumer information. The > FTC is seeking to codify their “rules” regarding whom businesses can sell or > give the information to, and whether consumers can opt in or out of the > information-gathering. > It turns out that only 3 percent of government agency Web sites audited by > the General Accounting Office follow those FTC recommendationsand even the > FTC was among the 97 percent of violators. Government Web sites apparently > swap sensitive information on citizens like last month’s Pokémon cards. As > House Majority Leader Dick Armey asked, “Which worries you more: the IRS > disclosing your personal financial information, orGap.comknowing how many > pairs of jeans you’ve bought this year?”2. Mailboxes. Individuals who don’t > have too-permanent addresses find post office boxes a convenient way to > receive mail. Those seeking a bit more privacy have found that private > mailboxes, such as the ones available at Mail Boxes Etc., afford even more > protection. But in late 1999, the U.S. Postal Service required that anyone > wishing to open a new private mailbox supply his home address and two forms > of identification. Groups including the National Coalition Against Domestic > Violence have decried the new requirements, since it makes it that much > harder for people to keep their whereabouts unknown from potential > stalkersnot to mention government snoops. The Postal Service has so far > refused to back down in the face of these protests.3. Brady Law > databases.When the Brady Act was passed, one of its key provisions was that > background checks on gun buyers would eventually be instant and that federal > authorities must immediately “destroy all records” created by the National > Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This was to assure that the > federal government would not create a national database of firearms owners. > But the FBI decided once again that the letter of the law was but mere > suggestion. The bureau announced it would be saving records of gun sales for > at least six months, ostensibly as an “audit record” to keep track of how > well the background check system is working. (A National Rifle Association > challenge to the FBI lost in the first court round, but an appeal is pending.) > In a related matter, the Veterans Benefits Administration has turned over > 90,000 names to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS “no sale” list. The names > are those of veterans, not convicted felons, whose supposedly private medical > records included an administrative finding that they were “mentally > incompetent.” Besides veterans afflicted with post-traumatic stress (a > diagnosis on a written questionnaire), the list also includes “incompetent > surviving spouses, adult helpless children and dependent parents” of vets.4. > Know Your Customer.If at first you don’t succeed, snoop, snoop again. That > seems to be the government’s motto as Treasury et al. have tried to sneak > through the backdoor of Congress bank-snooping rules that were defeated by a > torrent of unfavorable citizen reaction. “Know Your Customer” rules would in > fact require banks to spy on their customers and report anything “abnormal” > about an individual’s pattern of withdrawals and deposits to the government. > Not to be deterred, anti-privacy forces tried to impose similar requirements > on “inter-national” transactions, and the consumers who make them, in a > supposed anti-money-laundering bill. Thankfully, that bill, HR 3886, seems > dead for now.5. National ID.Although the Social Security number is still too > widely used as a de facto ID number, the federal government has been quite > busy trying to saddle us with a de jure one. The first try was the > HillaryCare program in 1993. Part of the proposed socialized health-care > system would have mandated that every citizen carry a health identifier card, > with medical history embedded on an electromagnetic stripand with the > potential, no doubt, for other kinds of information to be tied to those > records. The bar-code crowd tried again with the Health Insurance Portability > and Accountability Act of 1996, which directed the Department of Health and > Human Services to tag every patient with a unique health identifier. > Thankfully, amendments by Representative Ron Paul defunding the identifier > have passed the last two appropriations processes. But, cash-poor as it may > be, the provision remains on the books. > The national ID card reared its head again in 1996, when the President signed > an immigration law, part of which mandated that a state driver’s license have > the license-holder’s Social Security number printed on it. The thinking > behind this is that only with a national ID system can we stop the scourge of > illegal immigrants from “taking American jobs away.” Fortunately, that > provision of the bill was repealed in 1999, before it went into effect.6. > Wiretaps.The ACLU and others who monitor civil liberties have noted that the > Clinton regime has been the wiretap-happiest administration to date. Congress > helped the administration earn this dubious honor by passing the > Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994. CALEA > forced phone companies to install wiretap devices directly into their systems > to provide federal law enforcement with easier access to their customers’ > communications. At the time, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified that the FBI > would not use CALEA authority to trace the location of cell-phone users. But > last year, in a familiar pattern, the FBI convinced the FCC that under CALEA, > cell-phone companies must give the government the beginning and ending > location of a cell-phone user’s call. > The FBI has also argued that it has the right to collect digital content > after a call has gone throughkeyed-in numbers such as extensions and bank > account numberswith only a “pen register” warrant issued by a federal > magistrate. In the analog age, pen-register warrants enabled investigators to > find out what number a call was placed to, as opposed to a search warrant > issued by a judge, which was needed to actually listen in on phone calls. A > federal court overruled that position in August. And in its fight to make > sure it hears everything, the FBI has also had mixed success in barring > foreign companies not subject to the FBI’s whims from domestic > telecommunications.7. IRS audits.Twenty-five years ago Richard Nixon was > nearly run out of town for just suggesting the IRS take a closer look at his > “enemies.” But under longtime Hillary Rodham Clinton friend Commissioner > Margaret Milner Richardson and her successors, the IRS has acted like a > political attack dog. One of the earliest targeted on the enemies list was > the Western Journalism Center (WJC), whose Web siteWorldNetDaily.comwas > asking a lot of inconvenient questions at the time about the strange death of > Vincent Foster. > As a result, WJC has since spun off WorldNetDaily into a for-profit > corporation. WND has continued tracking the IRS as they have gone after a > virtual who’s who of Clinton antagonists, from the Heritage Foundation (its > four-year audit is not yet over) to the Christian Coalition to Juanita > Broaddrick, who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978.8. > Filegate.Another oldie but goodie, this one is still having repercussions > today. When more than 900 FBI files of Republican political appointees > mysteriously appeared in the White House, the Clintons blamed a “bureaucratic > snafu.” Depositions by Linda Tripp and others taken in the ongoing civil > litigation (available atwww.judicialwatch.org) have revealed that information > from the files was copied into White House databases for later use.9. > Echelon.First formed as part of the American-British alliance created after > World War II, Echelon is an automated eavesdropping network that seemingly > swaths the entire globe. Run by the intelligence agencies of five Anglophone > countries (the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New > Zealand) and headed by our own National Security Agency, the system > intercepts “billions of messages per hour” from phone, fax, and e-mail > communications. Recent investigations by the European Union and others have > revealed that Echelon computers search through those messages and flag for > human analysis those with keywords such as “bomb,” “Vince Foster,” or “CIA.” > And the keen part, from the spooks’ perspective, is that by having their pals > in MI6 spy on Americans while the NSA spies on British citizens, the two can > swap information while claiming not to violate laws barring them from spying > on their own citizens.10. Carnivore.Carnivore is the FBI’s answer to Echelona > “black box” with secret software inside attached to an ISP’s computer > network. Carnivore monitors all traffic (e-mail, Web surfing, chats, and so > on) on the ISP and, the FBI claims, only gives the authorities the > information they have a court order for. > Of course, there’s no way to keep an eye on the FBI. Clinton Attorney General > Janet Reno sought some of that elusive verification in the form of an > “independent” review by a leading university. But when universities saw all > the secrecy restrictions and limits on what they would even be allowed to > review, most blanched. Fox News reported that scientists at MIT, University > of California, San Diego, and Purdue all declined to submit proposals. The > Department of Justice finally settled on a teamlarded with government > contractors, ex-Clinton advisers, and security-clearance typesassembled by > the IIT Research Institute in Illinois to conduct the review. (We only know > so much about the review team because John Young ofwww.cryptome.orgrealized > the electronically redacted proposal released by Justice could easily be > unmasked.) > ISPs have understandably been rather silent on the issue ever since an > unnamed ISP, presumed to be Earthlink, lost a court battle to keep FBI from > installing Carnivore. They may get back some of their gumption now that > Network Ice, a leader in the consumer firewall business, has released > “Altivore,” a free program ISPs can install and run themselves so as to > extract for the FBI only relevant court-ordered data. > Of course, this is but a partial list, and a case could be made for any > number of government actions to be included among the top ten. If the debate > in Washington continues to focus on the information practices in the private > sector and ignores much-needed reform of government abuses, it will be that > much harder to even agree on a top > 100.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/ignoring-real-privacy-problems/?utm_source=The+Freeman&utm_campaign=126e06267b-In_brief_1_8_2010&utm_medium=email#
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
