Top-Secret America

The Washington Post has a three part series on the top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

And in case you hadn't guessed, this bureaucracy is endlessly complicated, wasteful, and unchecked. And thanks to FISA and the Patriot Act, which basically legalized warrantless eavesdropping, the data flow is enormous:

Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases. The same problem bedevils every other intelligence agency, none of which have enough analysts and translators for all this work.

And yet they keep telling us we have to give up our privacy for our safety. But as Glenn Greenwald explained, all this surveillance is not keeping us safe:

But as I wrote many times back then -- often by interviewing and otherwise citing House Intelligence Committee member Rush Holt, who has been making this point repeatedly -- the more secret surveillance powers we vest in the Government, the more we allow the unchecked Surveillance State to grow, the more unsafe we become. That's because the public-private axis that is the Surveillance State already collects so much information about us, our activities and our communications -- so indiscriminately and on such a vast scale -- that it cannot possibly detect any actual national security threats. NSA whistle blower Adrienne Kinne, when exposing NSA eavesdropping abuses, warned of what ABC News described as "the waste of time spent listening to innocent Americans, instead of looking for the terrorist needle in the haystack."

This is almost enough to make me join the shouting teabaggers demanding smaller government -- except that the Queen Teabagger wants to exempt defense spending from the group's anti-spending fervor.

Be sure to read tomorrow's WaPo article which will surely describe how all this spending is making a few private contractors filthy rich while giving us nothing in return.

Filtering the Revolution

In the aftermath of the election in Iran, Twitter emerged as the most powerful way for Iranians to disseminate information and organize protests. The Iranian government has been censoring the Internet for years, but of course -- as the Cute Cat Theory explains -- firewalls don't stop anybody for long.

But don't expect our own government to understand technology, firewalls, or cute cats. Sens. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., plan to introduce a bill that would bar foreign companies that sell technology to Iran from receiving federal contracts.

My first thought -- have these senators heard of China? China's net censorship is well documented. American companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have all been complicit in China's human rights abuses. Heck, you might even say they were enthusiastic.

But why do these companies make technologies with wiretapping features built in anyway? Our lawmakers should know the answer to this simple question. In the EU and the US, telecommunications networks are legally required to have those capabilities for Lawful Intercept. Unfortunately, the exact same network hardware that is sold over here is also sold over there.

This fact shouldn't give the above mentioned companies a free pass for supporting oppressive regimes. However, our own government has to see the bigger picture. We want our law enforcement agencies to be able to wiretap (with a court order -- wink wink), but these Lawful Intercept requirements have consequences far outside our own borders.

Oh, and this leads me to my second thought -- why the hell aren't we punishing the companies who enabled warrantless wiretapping within the US? Schumer and Graham ought to work on that one for a while.

Homeland Security Idol

American Idol meets DHS in ABC's new reality show Homeland Security USA. Tonight, I watched it so you don't have to.

From the start, a faceless and booming voice-of-authority tells us how brave men and women safeguard our country and enforce our laws while patrolling our borders. I assume they mean these border regions that nearly 2/3 of the US population lives in, and the ACLU refers to as a "constitution-free zone."

So how do you turn an absurd bureaucracy with an Orwellian name into fun family entertainment? Well, you have to have some zany characters like the Swiss belly dancer who, in broken English, wanted to know if she would get a refund on her airline ticket because she was being sent back home. I was waiting to hear her sing, but then I remembered that show doesn't start until next week.

A reality show has to promise a lot of suspense. Oh look, we caught a terrorist using his real name and birth date! Oh wait. A case of mistaken identity. But how nice of the kindly agents to tell the family, after traumatizing their children with guns, how to handle the situation in the future. (We don't hear what this advice is, by the way.)

The producers must have an easy time making this show. Everything is right out of the Bush-Cheney propaganda handbook. They stick to the official script that DHS is securing the United States from terrorist threats and attacks. But where were the threats? The umpteen pounds of drugs confiscated don't scare me in the least. Make them legal already. The barbecued bats from Thailand? That's definitely gross and they might have made a few people sick, but I wish our government could put the same effort into inspecting imports which are a very real threat.

Finally, we're treated to the new American experience of airport security theater. The bizarre scene of a boy around age 11 dutifully reporting the contents of his backpack to an agent made me wonder if Bush ever envisioned a Youth League. Hey, it's not too late, George. You've got two weeks left.

The message of the show was clear. Shut up. We're doing this for your own good. Now stand still while we put this collar around your neck.

I rate this show "code red." Be on high alert if you dare to watch it.

Your E-Mail Is Safe Again

I know the DOJ is trying to make David Kernell sound like a dangerous "computer hacker," but the guy who exposed Sarah Palin's Yahoo e-mail account didn't really hack, he duped. He allegedly answered the standard security questions, reset her password, and posted the mailbox contents to Wikileaks.

Of course, this unauthorized access is a crime, but it's fascinating to watch the over-the-top hysteria from the same government that has been violating our privacy for years. Glenn Greenwald remarks on the irony:

The same political faction which today is prancing around in full-throated fits of melodramatic hysteria and Victim mode (their absolute favorite state of being) over the sanctity of Sarah Palin’s privacy are the same ones who scoffed with indifference as it was revealed during the Bush era that the FBI systematically abused its Patriot Act powers to gather and store private information on thousands of innocent Americans; that Homeland Security officials illegally infiltrated and monitored peaceful, law-abiding left-wing groups devoted to peace activism, civil liberties and other political agendas disliked by the state; and that the telephone calls of journalists and lawyers have been illegally and repeatedly monitored.

Of course, you would expect the right-wing pundits who have defended the surveillance state to announce "if Sarah Palin has nothing to hide, then she shouldn't be worried!" But of course they don't.

And of course, we all now know that Sarah Palin has indeed been trying to hide something -- her personal vendetta against state trooper Mike Wooten.

Here's where these crimes intersect. Governor Palin's exposed email account revealed that she had been violating the Open Records Act:

The bottom line is that Palin appears to have benefited from her decision to conduct state business using private channels. As governor, she has touted the need for accountability and transparency (even though she has withheld about 1100 emails involving her aides, citing dubious justifications). But because Palin used one or more non-state email accounts for official communications--perhaps improperly--she has created a costly mess for her administration's information officers and a situation in which emails from all her accounts will likely not become public before November 4. If her emails contain any information that might not reflect well upon Palin, the McCain-Palin campaign need not worry. Palin, wittingly or not, has engineered a delay that is the functional equivalent of a cover-up.

The exposed email also revealed her possible motive for using the Yahoo email account in the first place -- to hide her husband's involvement in official business.

So now, with good reason, some legal experts are questioning the indictment against David Kernell. If the email intrusion was not committed to further another crime, then it may not be a felony...

But don't expect that to get in the way of this Department of Justice. They will always protect their own. They might save us from one evil hacker, but that's meager consolation when you still live in a surveillance state.

We'll All Be Collared

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for reporting on the approaching police state. The Department of Homeland security would really like to put the electric- shock dog collar on all of us for our own good. Ok, I'm just kidding. Actually, it's a bracelet not a collar.

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass
• contain personal information about the traveler
• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes.

I don't think it's a joke, but will the average person submit to this? Sadly and cynically, I think so. Look at the lack of resistance to the very real body-scanning machines installed in several airports. "If it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." seems to be the prevailing sentiment regarding that technology.

But these shock bracelets... certainly people will resist? Or will the straps be colored red white and blue and emblazoned with "Support Our Troops"? This way everybody will know it's their patriotic duty to comply.

But certainly, everybody realizes there will be mistakes. Here is a scenario. Airport security wants to immobilize the obnoxious fist-waving drunk. They click the remote and kill your grandma instead... Which brings me to another question. How does this system work? Is the system set up so one button immobilizes everybody? Because how do you target the terrorist or obnoxious asshole? Ask him for his seat number first? What if the wrong passenger number is punched in?

Regardless, this system cannot make us safer. Here I go thinking like a terrorist again...

Add two new steps to taking over the plane. Step one, remove or disable your shock bracelet. Step two, use your hacked remote to trigger everybody else's bracelet. Then, effortlessly continue with your hijacking now that all the passengers have been immobilized.

Hey, if these bracelets are seen as a triumph in the war on terror, maybe we'll be compelled to wear them all the time. I mean not just at the airport but from cradle to grave. Probably implanted in our skin. Nobody will ever give the government crap again. Nobody will ever protest. Nobody will ever raise their voice. Nobody will ever resist. How could you?

Or how should we?

I see only one valid use for these bracelets. Put them on all politicians when they take office.

What You Should Know About FISA

FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It became a U.S. federal law in 1978.

The law prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens suspected of espionage) on territory under United States control.

What you should know about FISA is that it created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied is reported. In 1980, the court approved 322 warrants. In 2007, the court approved 2370 warrants. Check the FISA Stats web site to see that 99% of warrant requests are approved.

What you should know about FISA is that it has always had emergency provisions. The Attorney General has the power to authorize secret electronic surveillance and searches before any warrant is granted, or an application is made, for up to 72 hours. It was not a FISA weakness that prevented the capture of Zacarias Moussaoui prior to 9/11.

What you should know about FISA is that it was amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. One of these changes was to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.

On December 16, 2005, The New York Time's reported that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency in cooperation with major telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.

On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered that it be stopped immediately, on the grounds that such activities are violations of the rights to free speech and privacy.

What you should know about FISA is that it was again amended this time by the Protect America Act of 2007. This act was a response to the NSA ruling and modified FISA in several ways.

• It allows the Attorney General to issue program warrants for international calls without court review.
  
• It has no protections for American phone calls and emails that are caught up in an investigation.
• It gives the administration greater power to force telecom companies to cooperate with surveillance operations. The telecom companies can be compelled to cooperate by orders from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

The Protect America Act expired on February 17, 2008. However, the underlying FISA did not expire.

What you should know about FISA is that yet another amendment was approved by the House of Representatives on Friday. This law is called the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

• It ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
• It permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• It permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• It further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court.
• It does NOT guarantee members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

What you should know about this amendment is that it has no public value for citizens or civil liberties.

What your should know about the Fourth Amendment to The United States Constitution is that it states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And that's the clearest government document I've read all day.

X-Ray Vision

Ten U.S. airports are installing new body-scanning machines that produce whole-body images that reveal your most private parts. Feel safer yet?

I certainly don't. With a tiny bit of brainstorming, I can come up with a few holes in this system.

Obese people can hide items under their folds of fat. Skinny people can conceal items in their body cavities. People can simply disguise things in their carry-on bag. Or multiple people can carry on weapon parts to be assembled on-board. And if a suicide-bomber is caught with a device, what's stopping him from detonating it right there in the airport killing hundreds? Keep in mind, I came up with these genius ideas and I'm not even a criminal mastermind.

The alternative to submitting to the indignity of the full body scan is a full body pat down. What baffles me the most is that people don't seem to mind this invasion of privacy. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "well if it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." Are we getting too used to these humiliations? Today the airport, tomorrow the mall.

Another issue is who views these body scans? We are told a security person in a separate room views the image and immediately deletes it. Call me cynical, but I estimate in 6 months a voyeuristic body scan web site will pop up. Viewing primo celebrity shots will cost extra of course. They can call the web site "Security Theater."

Because that's exactly what the airports are creating -- ostentatious displays of expensive technology to give an illusion of safety. But so far the results are more like a dysfunctional sideshow that has cost the economy $26billion.

Flying the not-so-friendly skies is an inherently dangerous adventure. Planes crashed and sometimes exploded long before we were targeted by terrorists. Security measures should concentrate on keeping the bad guys out of the cockpit. That protects the people on the ground. The people on the plane are already taking a calculated risk.

Coke Classic

Here is a fascinating Flickr photo album: The Cocaine Photos. It really captures a certain 80's vibe. Though the 80's were my high school and college years, I didn't participate in the drugs, but I do remember those jackets, those hairstyles, that Duran Duran poster, and the furniture. Huh? What happened to their furniture? They must have sold it all to buy the drugs.

I had another random thought while staring at these pictures. They didn't have digital cameras back then, so they had to actually get their film developed at a convenience store or photo booth, but I bet nobody turned these guys in to the police. Maybe the guy at the Fotomat was a stoner too, or maybe people simply understood the concept of privacy back then.

Of course, by "back then" I mean before 9/11 when we suddenly became very comfortable with the government invading our privacy. There are two interesting federal laws most of us (including me) don't fully understand: the Bank Secrecy Act, and the USA Patriot Act. By these two laws, banks are required to report any transaction that they suspect is intended to violate or evade any federal law or any federal regulation. Americans took solace that these laws would certainly only be used to fight terrorists, drug traffickers, and money launderers. But no, of course not. This is how Elliot Spitzer was caught. He withdrew a few thousand dollars which required the bank to file a “Suspicious Activity Report" (SAR). The Feds followed the money, and discovered the prostitution ring.

So, this is great, right? We are catching all kinds of criminals now! But I, for one, am not enthusiastic about this. From bankrate.com, "In total, 919,230 SARs were filed in 2005. You cannot find out if one has been filed on you; anyone revealing that information is breaking the law." Many of these reports are triggered by legitimate financial transactions, and the transactions can be blocked or frozen while being investigated. I wish we valued bank secrecy as much as the Swiss.

Now I am stumped by the irony of my own blog post. That first link above goes to a photo album which somebody found at a swap meet. They scanned the pictures and posted them on Flickr without the permission of the people captured in the photos. I'm on a soap box about the government invading our privacy, and yet, by circulating that link, am I doing it too? I guess because I did not create that Flickr album, I don't feel guilty... I feel a bit voyeuristic though.

Update April 5, 2008: The owner of the Flickr photo album has now marked the photos "private" probably because there was some talk of a lawsuit over on Boing Boing. However, some creative types have been kind enough to recreate the original photos. They're just not the same without the Duran Duran poster.