Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts

Thursday, June 13, 2013

(Politics) Privacy rights: public in US and UK support violations of their right to privacy







With reports in the last few weeks of the NSA breaching the privacy of millions of Americans as well as the revelation of the Prism program that entailed privacy breaches with the help of a host of tech and internet companies, there has been much discussion about the growth of executive power, the failure of the legislature and the judiciary but not much about what people actually think as it may provide a shock for those among us who favour their right to privacy over security interests.

According to poll published by Pew Research Center, 56% of Americans support the NSA’s monitoring of phone records in the interest of “investigat(ing) terrorism”[1].While there is a “substantial minority” of 41% who would beg to differ, 62% favour the government pursuing threats “even if that intrudes on personal privacy”[2].

It appears that number doesn’t change much when political affiliations are concerned as an incredible 69% of Democrats favour the government threats even at the expense of “personal privacy”, a point that republicans (62%) and independents (59%) also concur with[3].

This trend of the public support of the government investigating threats at the expense of their privacy is not exclusive to the US as the British public also are prepared to have their rights breached in the interest of stifling security threats. According to a poll published by YouGov, only 19% of the British public  feel that privacy rights should be “protected” even when it limits “what the security forces can do  when combating terrorism”[4]. While only 19% think that privacy right trump the security interests of the state may worry privacy rights advocates, what might terrify them is the astonishing 42% of the British public feel  that security forces should have more powers than they already have “even if this means the privacy or human rights of ordinary people suffers”[5].

While these polls reveal that most people across both sides of the pond are prepared to see their rights violated in the interests of security, what these polls don’t cover or ask is what the government will do with the information gained from their investigations or even if those “investigations” in question are borne from probable cause or an actual crime.  The polls focus extensively on the question of privacy rights with regard to terrorism rather than what the government or state security forces will do with the information.

There is a long and extensive history in the US of the government targeting individuals it didn’t like or suspected of foul play from civil leaders, including Martin Luther King to public figures of the American political left. Even when considering the use of information gleaned from secret surveillance being used catch or use against suspected terrorist s in court, the evidence is useless as it cannot be used in court because, you’ve guessed it, its secret.  


Another reason why secret obtained information useless, is that the government is often less than forthcoming with how it is obtained as it will reveal a serious breach of rights the US governments is not prepared to disclose in an open court.

In sum, while people may be prepared to have their rights breached in the interest of countering terrorism, the sacrifice may turn out to be pointless as any information extracted through the state monitoring it citizens on a large scale gives suspected party a way to escape prosecution as it at once undermines the very rights the government are trying to protect while empowering the very people it claims it is trying to stop.




[1] Pew Research Center, 2013, Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic,  http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[5] Ibid

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

(Politics) Department of Justice: News of the DOJ targeting AP for spying should be no shock to anybody, especially AP






There has been an uproar across the media with the news of the Department of Justice running a secret investigation on the Associated Press in which the DOJ had  “secretly obtained the phone records of journalists at the wire service’s (AP) news-gathering operations”[1]. The investigation was spurred by a series of ‘damaging’ leaks which led to US Attorney General Eric Holder hiring US attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr.  to investigate the news organisation due to its apparent leak of  “classified information about a foiled terror plot in Yemen”[2].

In light of the public reaction to the secretly conducted investigation into AP, Holder has done his best to deflect responsibility from himself citing the role of his deputy James Cole in signing off on the investigation and his decision to recuse “himself early on in the investigation”[3]. However his efforts to quell the criticism of himself and the DOJ were quashed as AP sought to offer their public response.

AP president Gary Pruitt was less than pleased as he right admonished the DOJ opting to investigate in  secret “rather than talk to us in advance…”[4]. Pruitt was also critical of the usual rationale of “national security” offered by governments when caught red handed when point out that “They (DOJ) say this secrecy is important for national security. It is always difficult to respond to that, particularly since they still haven’t told us specifically what they are investigating”[5].

Republicans in response have made haste in admonishing Holder with Reince Priebus, Head of the RNC, stating the importance of the first amendment and that must be respected[6]. If past events are to count for anything, Holder could face White House pressure to resign as the government was quick to distance itself from Holder and the DOJ  as Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that “president is a strong defender of the first amendment” as if he was speaking in response to Priebus’s remarks[7]. However for all of the talk offered about the violation of the first amendment, what really should be up for discussion is the daily violation of the fourth.

Just last week, the DOJ came in for criticism after a report came to light that the DOJ  and the FBI were of the position that “they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files”[8]. What this means in practice is that the DOJ and FBI can obtain private information without a warrant and a subpoena is enough “ to obtain nearly "all records from an ISP”[9].

To do this the DOJ  has been flouting a court ruling made three years ago that deemed “warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment” with the FBI instructing its agents that they "may subpoena" e-mail records from companies "without running afoul of" the Fourth Amendment”[10].

While US lawmakers have paid much lip service about doing something about constant violation of the fourth amendment by the DOJ, Congress has largely helped usher in laws that undermine the right to privacy, starting with the still controversial 2001 Patriot Act, which was the brainchild of the DOJ .

While Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado and others has expressed his “concern” regarding the DOJ and the FBI stance and use of “warrantless searches” and the need to make amendments to the 27 year old Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Udall and others had been more scornful of the IRS recent breach of the Fourth Amendment in a signed letter stating their belief that the IRS’s “… actions are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures"[11]

US companies have been more forthcoming with their reservations about the DOJ wanton violation of the Fourth Amendment a number of companies  “including Amazon, Apple, AT&T, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and Twitter, as well as liberal, conservative, and libertarian advocacy groups” have been asking for changes current laws that ensure that “ law enforcement needs a warrant to access private communications and the locations of mobile devices”[12].

The cruel irony of  the use of warrantless searches and seizure violating the Fourth amendment is that it provides an avenue for the very people used to justify them to weaken the cases prosecuting them. This is happening in a case against two brothers who embarked on a failed terror plot as the evidence against them was obtained “through the National Security Agency’s post-9/11 mass surveillance program” which would be fine if it didn’t mean that the “constitutionality of the NSA’s surveillance methods would be scrutinized”[13]. This has huge ramifications as this can lead to “legal challenges” upon whether the methods used obtain the evidence in question was constitutional triggering appeals to the Supreme Court[14].

In sum, While there has widespread surprise and anger towards Holder and the DOJ, what happened to the Associated press was just the symptom of a much larger cancer that ailed the United States for more than decade and has made a mockery of  the Fourth Amendment. This case bring into play an old but still relevant date between the compromise between liberty and security however a brief study of what has happened over the last decade will make clear for anybody willing to see that this debate has now become obsolete.    


[1] J. C. Timm, 2013, Justice Department seizes journalists’ records,
[2] Ibid
[3] Fox News, 2013, Holder says AP proble handled by deputy after he recued himself, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/holder-recuses-himself-from-doj-probe-associated-press-phone-records/
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] D. McCullagh, 2013, DOJ: We don’t need warrants for e-mail, facebook chats,
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] D. McCullagh, 2013, Senators demands DOJ, Fbi seek warrants to read e-mail, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583743-38/senator-demands-doj-fbi-seek-warrants-to-read-e-mail/
[12] D. McCullagh, 2013, DOJ: We don’t need warrants for e-mail, facebook chats,


[13] N. Lennard, 2013, New York terror suspect case could challenge NSA spying, http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/new_york_terror_suspect_case_could_challenge_nsa_spying/singleton/
[14] Ibid

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...