FLE

Rejecting National ID With so many states on record opposing REAL ID, the feds have been shifting through numerous stories trying to justify their national ID. First, they said it was a national security tool. But by now everyone realizes how easy it would be for criminal organizations and terrorists to avoid or defeat a national ID system. Then REAL ID became a way to control illegal immigration. But it has the same defects here too. Illegal immigrants will use a mix of forgery, fraud, and corruption at any motor vehicles bureau in the country to get around REAL ID. Driving illegal immigrants further into criminality deepens the problem rather than fixing it. And should law-abiding American citizens really have to carry a national ID to get at illegal immigrants? Just who is the criminal here? Next, we were told that having a national ID was about identity fraud. But putting our personal information, Social Security Numbers, and basic identity documents like birth certificates into a nationwide string of government databases is a recipe for more identity theft, not less. WHEN THE Department of Homeland Security came out with the final REAL ID regulations last month, a top official threw the department's final Hail Mary, suggesting that REAL ID could be used to control access to cold medicine. That's right: cold medicine. The lesson? Once a national ID system is in place, the federal government will use it for tighter and tighter control of every American. The DHS has admitted that not a single state will comply with the REAL ID law by the May 11, 2008 deadline....
Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased. A few months earlier in the same airport, a tech engineer returning from a business trip to London objected when a federal agent asked him to type his password into his laptop computer. "This laptop doesn't belong to me," he remembers protesting. "It belongs to my company." Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself. Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had "a security concern" with her. "I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight," she said. The seizure of electronics at U.S. borders has prompted protests from travelers who say they now weigh the risk of traveling with sensitive or personal information on their laptops, cameras or cellphones. In some cases, companies have altered their policies to require employees to safeguard corporate secrets by clearing laptop hard drives before international travel. At least two major global corporations, one American and one Dutch, have told their executives not to carry confidential business material on laptops on overseas trips, Gurley said. In Canada, one law firm has instructed its lawyers to travel to the United States with "blank laptops" whose hard drives contain no data. "We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said....
Sen. Rockefeller Lets Slip the Spying Truth: Drift Nets To Be Legalized In a Senate floor speech, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) inadvertently made plain that the proposed changes to the nation's spying laws radically expand how the government wiretaps inside the United States. Rockefeller was decrying an amendment that would require the government to discard non-emergency evidence if a court later finds that the spying methods violate the law. Rockefeller makes clear that the impending changes to the law aren't about making it easier for the National Security Agency to listen in on a particular terrorism suspect's phone calls. Instead, the changes are about letting the nation's spooks secretly and unilaterally install filters inside America's phone and internet infrastructure. Rockefeller, the chief Democratic architect of the changes, explains: Unlike traditional [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] application orders which involve collection on one individual target, the new FISA provisions create a system of collection. The courts role in this system of collection is not to consider probable cause on individual targets but to ensure that procedures used to collect intelligence are adequate. The courts' determination of the adequacy of procedures therefore impacts all electronic communications gathered under the new mechanisms, even if it involves thousands of targets. In short, the changes legalize Room 641A, the secret spying room inside AT&T's San Francisco internet switching center that was outed by former AT&T employee Mark Klein. That room sits at the center of a lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged illegal participation in the government's secret, warrantless spying program. Under the new rules, secret spying court judges will no longer be evaluating whether the government has probable cause to eavesdrop on a spy or a terrorist who is inside the United States or to wiretap a particular foreigner via wiretaps inside the United States. Instead the judges will simply evaluate descriptions of how NSA filters in the infrastructure are designed to not catch purely domestic traffic. They can also approve or disapprove of how the spooks 'disguise' or reveal the identities of Americans who are one of the parties in any communication that involves a foreigners....
Why the Protect America Act Is a Bad Idea The lone virtue of the Protect America Act is that the powers it granted are now set to expire in mid-February. As this revised deadline approaches, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid will once again face pressure to rush the White House's preferred legislation out the door. The president will claim that failure to act before the Protect America Act sunsets will undermine the government's ability to eavesdrop on terrorists. It's an ominous claim, but it's not true. The Protect America Act allows the administration to "authorize" eavesdropping programs for a year at a time. That means that the government's various warrantless surveillance activities will continue to operate at least through August. And of course, if the need for new wiretaps arises after the act sunsets, the administration still has the opportunity to file for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA even allows the government to begin surveillance first and apply for an emergency warrant after the fact. Bush's predecessor was also an ardent supporter of increased wiretapping authority. For example, on July 29, 1996, Bill Clinton unveiled a proposal to expand government surveillance by permitting the use of “roving wiretaps.” The nation was still reeling from terrorist attacks on the Atlanta Olympics and American barracks in Saudi Arabia, and many suspected that the explosion of TWA Flight 800 was also the work of terrorists. Clinton argued that these tragedies highlighted the need for legislative changes, and he pressed Congress to act before its August recess. But Congress had a bipartisan tradition of its own to defend. As they had done since Watergate, Congressional leaders raised concerns about civil liberties. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich said he was willing to consider changes to the law, but vowed to do so “in a methodical way that preserves our freedoms.” Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott vowed that Congress would not “rush to a final judgment” before going on vacation. In the end, the 104th Congress finished its term without giving President Clinton the wiretapping authority he sought. Today’s Democratic Congress has been far less protective of Americans’ privacy rights. Last August, in a virtual repeat of the events of 1996, Bush demanded that Congress approve expanded wiretapping powers before going on vacation. This time, Congressional leaders showed few qualms about “rushing to judgment." Indeed, both houses of Congress approved the White House’s preferred legislation with minimal changes within three days of its introduction. Why are today’s Democrats less concerned with civil liberties than Republicans were a decade ago?....
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people's physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists. But it's an issue that raises major privacy concerns -- what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans. The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans. Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in." But it's unnerving to privacy experts. "It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Project. The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect....
Is Retroactive Telecom Immunity Unconsitutional? The Senate continues debate on whether to grant amnesty to telecoms that turned over Americans phone records to the nation's spooks and helped them spy on Americans' international phone and email conversations. But Findlaw columnist and Cardozo law school professor Anthony Sebok suggests that freeing the telecoms without giving some sort of compensation to those suing the companies would amount to an unconstitutional taking. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against suspected participating telecoms for alleged violations of federal privacy law. Proponents of immunity say the companies were simply acting in good faith for five years and that the Administration showed them paperwork certifying the government thought its own conduct was legal. Opponents say the telecoms knew they were violating the clear dictates of federal privacy law and that no one should be above the law -- especially since this wasn't a one-off request just days after 9/11. Sebok's argument, however, hinges on the constitutionality of the provision, which would require a judge to dismiss a civil suit so long as the Attorney General writes a secret letter saying the company did not participate or did so only after getting paperwork saying the government thought its own use of the data was legal....
New Weapon Against Terror: A Flashlight? It looks like a normal flashlight, but Homeland Security has paid close to a million dollars for it. It can stop you right in your tracks. Law enforcement is already calling it "controversial." The point of this device is to disorient you, so we modified the video when we showed it on air. If you wish to see the unmodified footage of the device in action, you can click here -- but be warned, you may find the experience uncomfortable. For riots and chaotic situations, police often use tasers, rubber bullets and pepper spray to try and control the crowd. But there could soon be a new weapon in their arsenal: a hi-tech flashlight with a big punch. "Flashblindness, the 'Oh my gosh this light is really bright, I can't see anything behind it.' That effect is immediate for everybody," said Bob Lieberman, president of Intelligent Optical Systems. Nausea and a feeling of disorientation soon follow. The device is called the "LED Incapacitator." Intelligent Optical Systems is the company building it right here in California, thanks to an $800,000 contract from Homeland Security. Once Lieberman turned on the Incapacitator for us, we started feeling the effects. It can be irritating to watch the video, but in person it's even more stunning. According to Lieberman, the device flashes LED lights at several specific frequencies. Before your brain has time to adjust to one frequency, the Incapacitator flashes another. Add multiple colors and random pulses and the brain just can't keep up....
Bush Administration Appeals Patriot Act Ruling The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal court decision declaring as unconstitutional a central provision of the Patriot Act, which Congress quickly adopted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. At issue is a September ruling by an Oregon judge who said the Patriot Act gave too much power to the government when it came to snooping on suspected criminals in the United States -- a violation of constitutional search-and-seizure rules. The administration is asking the San Francisco-based, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken. The judge ruled that the Patriot Act made it too easy for the government to secure warrants against criminal suspects from a secret court designed to help the authorities monitor and gather intelligence on terror suspects. Unlike search and surveillance warrants doled out against criminal suspects by federal judges, the secret court hands out warrants without even asking what probable cause the government has. Also, the government is not required to disclose what it is searching for or what it found. "Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the government has been prohibited from gathering evidence for use in a prosecution against an American citizen in a courtroom unless the government could prove the existence of probable cause that a crime has been committed," Aiken ruled....
DHS Appoints Cybersecurity Official with Poor Security Record The Department of Homeland Security has appointed an official to head a top cybersecurity position charged with overseeing a new multi-million-dollar national protection plan despite the official's poor security record and ongoing investigations by the FBI and the DHS inspector general into events that occurred previously under his watch, according to Government Executive. Scott Charbo was formerly the chief information officer for the DHS before his new appointment. Last year the House Homeland Security Committee investigated how he and his staff responded to breaches under his watch and found that he not only failed to properly address threats that occurred but also failed to manage a contractor, Unisys, that is now under investigation for criminal fraud and failure to protect DHS computers from intrusions. The committee found that Unisys, which had a $1.7 billion contract with DHS to secure and manage the IT network for DHS and the Transportation Security Administration, failed to detect intrusions to the network for three months beginning in June 2006. The intrusions, on 150 computers, were traced to a Chinese-language hacker site. The FBI is currently investigating Unisys, according to a Washington Post story last year....
WA house judiciary casts vote to strip gun owners of right to jury trial The Washington State House Judiciary Committee cast its votes today to strip Washington gun owners of the right to a trial by jury. Since at least 1959, Washington citizens have had the right to a jury trial with a standard of “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” before losing their right to bear arms due to being involuntarily committed for an alleged mental health illness. House Bill 3095, sponsored by Committee Chairwoman Rep. Pat Lantz (D-26), effectively removes these protections by stripping citizens of their right to bear arms, perhaps permanently, after being involuntarily committed for a mere 14 days. In these “probable cause” hearings there is no jury, no elected judge, and the standard of guilt is a mere preponderance of the evidence. “Setting aside the question of whether or not people should lose their right to bear arms after being involuntarily committed, it is inexcusable to deprive Washingtonians of the fundamental right to a jury trial and a reasonable standard of guilt,” noted CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff. “What other fundamental rights are our legislators willing to remove without the benefit of a jury trial?” Taff noted that alleged armed robbers and child molesters have a fundamental right to a unanimous verdict by a jury of their peers with the highest possible standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Even in civil cases, the Washington Constitution dictates that “right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”....
Police set to search for guns at homes As Boston police prepare to go into some of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods, knock on doors of private houses, and ask if they can search for illegal guns without a warrant, officials are trying to pitch the idea of the plan as friendly cooperation to residents who still see it as a threatening intrusion. A friendly looking logo - a drawing of a house surrounded by the sun - adorns the brochure police have drafted to explain and promote the initiative, "Safe Homes." Photos of officers playing baseball with children and chatting with teenagers dot the pamphlet. Twice, police have taken calls from listeners on a black radio station in Roxbury. Police plan to search for weapons in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods by late February or early March. Relying on the tips from schools, community organizations, and parents, they will look in the rooms of any children whose parents or guardians give consent to the search, French said. (The program does not apply to anyone over 18, because they are legally adults and parents can no longer give consent to a search of their rooms.) Ten officers and a sergeant assigned to the city's schools have been trained to conduct the searches....