(Politics) Why Government Privacy Breaches Have Very Little To Do With Privacy

While most Americans may experience shock and anger upon reading news stories that inform them of the extent that their fourth amendment rights have become obsolete, it would confirmed what more informed parties among the American populous have been witnessing for 12 years and even longer. For all the breaches of the fourth amendment under the Bush Administration and the Obama rhetoric promising his regime will avoid following suit, the Obama Administration  not unlike many other issues, has largely continued and even escalated policies started under the Bush administration to the point that it has become a fair question to ask whether the president is at the helm of a car or express train.

The president has stood up and defended the mass data collection of millions of his fellow citizens and argued its legality which must gall constitutional law professors across the nation that one of their own is actually arguing in favor of one of the biggest fourth amendment breaches ever.

However, what makes the recent stories in the press detailing privacy breaches by the executive branch so interesting is not the breaches of the fourth amendment, as it should be, but the ongoing struggle and debate over where executive power begins and corporate power ends as the reality is that there is no beginning or end to both as the split is arbitrary and metaphorical.  

The Obama administration has been clearly demanding that corporations (most of them in the tech field) should give their vast store of data for analysis and many, despite some denying such actions, have cooperated and in the case of Verizon, have been forced by secret court orders to give up information of their customers. Many in the press have been arguing that these companies should put the privacy of their customers before anything else but what they don't seem to realize is that despite the talk of corporate power, corporations have to acquiesce when the state asserts itself.

In sum, for the last two to three decades, we have often heard of  the diffusion of power or the end of the state power which has been true for the most part with regards many issues but as last week showed, not where it counts.

(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,

 http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/14/ap-stunned-as-doj-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,

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-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,

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-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

(Politics) CISPA: Passed Through House; Stagnant in Senate

 

The United States’ population has been abuzz the past couple weeks with extraordinary anomalies that have taken place across the country. The Texas fertilizer accident and the Boston bombings are but two of these incidents that have so captivated the national spotlight. Even still, Washington D.C. has been busy on their own front, as the controversial cyber security bill known as CISPA (The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) passed through the House of Representatives, last Thursday, with general ease, garnering a 288-127 vote count from the floor.

Nevertheless, increased opposition has been accruing since the bills proposal: resistance from privacy advocates, civil liberty groups, and even the White House –as President Obama has threatened an executive veto –has taken a mighty stand against the cyber security bill through various mean of communication. But what exactly is CISPA, and why should anyone care?

It seems that the bill has much support, despite the aforementioned opponents, from businesses that are struggling to fend off foreign hackers across Europe and Asia. The reason being is that many of these rogue hackers are able to cripple business infrastructure in the United States, notwithstanding being thousands of miles away from the actual corporations. Such attacks have lead to a demand for more protection for businesses and more repercussions for security breeches from international hackers.

Those opposed to the bill, however, are not buying it. Many object on the grounds that it would give entirely too much power into the hands of the Federal Government, namely, the NSA (National Security Agency). Essentially, it would be a free pass into whatever information needs analyzing from any business in the United States, even if the data is stored on private computers.

Michelle Richardson, an ACLU legislative councilwoman, argues: “"Cybersecurity can be done without sacrificing Americans' privacy online.” In fact, grassroot campaigns have been gathering widespread support from the laymen throughout America as well; for instance, many rallied behind CISPA Blackout Day (4/23) in protest to the Bill. Despite the apparent infringements of the fourth Amendment, lobbyists are fueling away in support of CISPA, as nearly eighty-four million dollars have been spent in favor of getting the bill through Congress. All the same, the bill, since being passed through the House last week, has been floundering in the Senate by their apparent disinterest on the account of being too busy.

It seems, to conclude, that it is the citizens right to their own privacy as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, namely, the Fourth Amendment. Albeit support has pushed CISPA through one leg of Congress already, it seems such support is only maintained by lots of bribes, lobbyists, and backdoor deals. Its future cannot be stated for sure; however, if it does proceed forthwith through the Senate, President Obama still has a chance to veto the bill, which he has already hinted he would do if upon occasion the bill made it successfully to his desk.

The full version of CISPA as passed through the House can be read here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3523:

The Carnage Report // http://thecarnagereport.blogspot.com // 2013

Brent McCulley on Twitter // http://twitter.com/brentthewalrus