by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In these days of ever eroding civil rights, it is important to recognize those in Congress willing to stand up for your rights. This is especially true given the ever increasing domestic surveillance of citizens without warrant by government agencies in cooperation with the telecommunications industry; a clear abuse of citizen’s 4th Amendment rights “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.” Love him or loathe him, this week the Congressman willing to fight the good fight for your rights is Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The open letter to AG Holder reads (in full):
May 10,2012
The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001Dear Attorney General Holder:
In January, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in United States v. Jones that the tracking of an individual’s movements through the use of a GPS tracking device was a search subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. I applaud the Court’s decision and believe that it was a watershed for Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.I was very concerned to read recent reports suggesting that state and local law enforcement agencies may be working around the protections of Jones by requesting the location records of individuals directly from their wireless carriers instead of tracking the individuals through stand-alone GPS devices installed on their vehicles. I was further concerned to learn that in many cases, these agencies appear to be obtaining precise records of individuals’ past and current movements from carriers without first obtaining a warrant for this information. I think that these actions may violate the spirit if not the letter of the Jones decision.
I am writing to ask you about the Department of Justice’s own practices in requesting location information from wireless carriers. I am eager to learn about how frequently the Department requests location information and what legal standard the Department believes it must meet to obtain it. I would also like to know how the Department practices may have changed these since the Jones decision.
I therefore request that you or your staff provide answers the following questions:
(1) How many requests for location information has the Department of Justice filed with wireless carriers in each of the past five calendar years and from January to April of this year? How many individuals’ location information was asked for in these requests?
(2) How many of these requests were complied with partially or entirely? How many individuals’ location information did the Department receive as a result of these requests?
(3) What historical and prospective (i.e. real-time) location information do you request from wireless carriers (e.g., cell site data, GPS data)?
(4) What legal standard does the Department of Justice believe applies to a request for historical location data (e.g., subpoena, court order, warrant, etc.)?
(5) Is this standard different or the same for prospective data?
(6) Is the standard different or the same for GPS data as opposed to cell-site data?
(7) Have these standards changed since the Jones decision? If so, how?
(8) Have any of the Department’s practices with respect to location information requests from wireless carriers changed since the Jones decision?
(9) How much money has the Department of Justice paid wireless carriers to offset expenses for their retrieval of this data in each of the past five years and from January to April of this year?I respectfully request that you or your staff provide responses to these questions by June 11, a month from the date of this letter. I believe that this is an urgent matter and one that will provide critical information for policymakers and privacy advocates alike.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Al Franken
Chairman, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law
For those not familiar with the Jones decision mentioned in the letter, Senator Franken is referring to U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259, decided by the Supreme Court on January 12, 2012 and previously discussed on this blog here and here. In summary, the government sought in Jones to create a precedent stating that they did not need a showing of probable cause to follow citizens with Global Positioning Devices such as cell phones. In an increasingly rare victory for civil rights, the Supreme Court decided unanimously against the government.
Given that telecommunications companies have a history of turning over your records without subpoena and simply at the request of the government and that they were given retroactive immunity for such violations of law and your civil rights, Senator Franken’s letter is more than just functionary window dressing but is rather a necessary follow up to find out if the DOJ is complying with the law in the wake of Jones.
While Senator Franken’s actions are laudable, are they sufficient guard for your 4th Amendment and privacy rights? Or does Congress as a whole need to take more aggressive action to protect citizens over corporations who collude with government to usurp your Constitutional rights?
What do you think?
Source(s): Letter dated May 10, 2012 from Sen. Al Franken (in his role as Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law) to Attorney General Eric Holder (.pdf), threat post 1 and 2 (from The Kapersky Lab Security News Service), The Wall Street Journal, U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259, January 12, 2012 (.pdf).
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
“Upon looking into the matter of the paragraph you pointed out, the root of the error is in the formatting of the original pdf file. I manually corrected the problem in the article.”
I know Gene, I told you that about 2 hours ago.
” However, if you have a problem with that I still suggest you take it up with Senator Franken’s office.”
Why would I have a problem with that? Senator Franken is a demi-god, I love that guy. I knew at T=0 that neither he nor his staff could have written the crap you attributed to them.
Thank you for correcting any problems you entered originally. Go take a nap now, you deserve it!
anon,
I didn’t say what I think about you. I said you had made a mistake. Like so many others you make on a regular basis.
anon,
Upon looking into the matter of the paragraph you pointed out, the root of the error is in the formatting of the original pdf file. I manually corrected the problem in the article. However, if you have a problem with that I still suggest you take it up with Senator Franken’s office.
As to any future personal criticism you might have of me? Really. What do I care what some anonymous Internet asshole thinks of me? Not one bit. What do others think of what some anonymous Internet asshole thinks of me? Nothing of any consequence. Why don’t you get back to us when you can offer something of value to a conversation? Say about the time you grow a personality.
Oh, I couldn’t care less about what you think of me. But I do admit I get a kick out of reading that phrase from you each and every time you feel forced to post it.
What troubles me is the damage you do to Professor Turley and his readers and here Senator Franken, by being unable to master ^C^V.
anon,
You’ve mistaken yourself once again as someone who I care what they think.
I try and stay away from your posts Gene, because they are just such a huge time suck of incompetence. But I love Al Franken, and I’ve been interested in Jones and regret the time I spent thinking maybe you had something to say for once, and could say it without soiling yourself.
Amongst the many glitches
“I am eager to learn about Department requests location information and what legal standard the must meet to obtain it.”
What the pdf actually contains:
“I am eager to learn about how frequently the Department requests location information and what legal standard the Department believes it must meet to obtain it.”
Like I’ve always told you Gene, you’re an idiot around Tech. I tried to be polite and assume you typed it in manually, but perhaps you’re just using a cheap knockoff browser or something that you’ve overbilled to your clients.
Maybe it was a string search and replace gone awry.
Regardless, your pdf copy is so horrible, it does Senator Franken a huge injustice.
http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-spying-memo-leaked-088/
US drones spy on Americans – ‘incidentally’
Published: 12 May, 2012, 17:28
“A leaked US Air Force document stipulates a drone that happens to capture surveillance images of Americans may store them for a period of 90 days. The paper appears to justify spying on citizens, as long as it is “incidental.”
The document accepts that the Air Force may not record information non-consensually; however it does state “collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.”
The report, dated April 23 was discovered by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists and has been put online.
Data that is accidentally recorded may be stored for a period of 90 days by the Pentagon while it is analyzed to see if the subjects are legitimate targets for state surveillance. The Pentagon may also disseminate this data among other government organizations if it sees fit.
“Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains,” states the document.
In addition, it justifies the gathering of data on domestic targets in certain circumstances. According to the paper, these include surveillance of natural disasters, environmental studies, system testing and training, and counterintelligence and security-related vulnerability assessments.
The document seems to spell bad news for civil liberties, considering the US government passed a bill in February allocating $63 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
If the bill is signed into law it will effectively allow the FAA to fill US skies with drones, a massive 30,000 predicted to be operational in US airspace by 2020.
Over 30 prominent civil rights groups in the US have rounded on the FAA and demanded that it reconsider the legislation and hold a rule-making session to address privacy and safety threats.
“Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected,” said the American Civil Liberties Union in response to the legislation.
The bill has sparked fears among Americans that their civil liberties may be under threat, considering that the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been extended to carry out attacks on militants.”
I understand that FAA or some other department is developing regulations for flying drones over the US.
One has to wonder if DOD and local police departments will be able to arm the drones or will drones be restricted to information gathering only.
If drones are allowed to be armed, who will determine rules of engagement?
I mention police department because in a state not far away there are recent news reports of a local police department that had two drones. The amazing thing re the two drones is that senior police mgmt claimed to be unaware the drones were in inventory and could offer no public justification for their purchase or intended use.
Incidents like purchase of drones with no plan for accountable use, lead one wonder if we do not have too many dollars flowing into the budgets of too many paramilitary organizations.
Over funding can be a threat just as can underfunding.
I hope that Franken is able to make some headway and continues to “fight the good fight” but, frankly, many Americans don’t seem to give a damn about the “erosion of civil rights.”
anon,
That was copied out of the pdf. If you had trouble understanding it, I suggest you either brush up on your English reading skills or take up the matter with Senator Franken’s office.
“If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
The question should be, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, why is the government snooping on you?”
–ACLU, Michelle Richardson, Washington Legislative Office
I’ve also heard people say, “If one is being monitored, there must be a good reason.”
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-might-know-youre-reading
“There is little evidence these spying programs have thwarted attacks. Inspectors general of key security agencies who reviewed the NSA warrantless wiretapping program found no hard evidence the program made us safer, despite its unprecedented scope. Similarly, though the FBI made close to 150,000 National Security Letter requests from 2003 to 2005, the Department of Justice Inspector General documented only one conviction in a terrorism case using the data during that period, and found no instance in which they helped prevent an actual terrorist plot.
(“Report – A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11”:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/report-call-courage-reclaiming-our-liberties-ten-years-after-911)
In the past I have criticized some of Franken’s actions.
But this has to be one of Franken’s finest hours in quite a while.
You go Al. Your good enough, your smart enough, and by god we support you all the way on this.
This is a knot of important issues that deserve consideration from every citizen. I am afraid Senator Franken has an uphill battle. But we should all wish him well.
And than you Gene H. for this timely post.
Anon,
In the spirit of civility……Attack only the post…. Not the blogger……you could have been a little kinder to the writer…. They do volunteer the time…. Now if it style your after…that’s a different story…
As for Obama’s promise of more transparency: he has prosecuted more whistleblowers and NOT prosecuted those they blow the whistle on. There is also a concerted effort to track phone calls, emails, etc. of various journalists, in particular, those who have been exposing excesses and illegalities.
Gene H, did you type that back in by hand?
How did an easy copy and paste end up so garbled?
I appreciate your taking the time to do this, but jeez, up your game pal, learn how to copy text out of a pdf.
Few Companies Fight Patriot Act Gag Orders, FBI Admits
by Kim Zetter, May 10, 2012
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges
“Of all the dangerous government surveillance powers that were expanded by the USA Patriot Act the National Security Letter power is one of the most frightening and invasive,” says the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in Washington, DC. -from the following link
Government spying on Americans increased under Obama’s watch
By DOUG THOMPSON
May 11, 2012
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/43748
Excerpt:
During his campaign for President in 2008, President Barack Obama promised to put an end to government spying on Americans and other abuses of freedom that grew into a national epidemic after the terrorist attacks on September 2011.
Instead, government surveillance of Americans has increased dramatically under Obama’s watch while freedom and individual rights have been stripped away under a barrage of increased scrutiny.
An investigation by Capitol Hill Blue into erosion of freedom and individual rights in America has found:
–The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of “National Security Letters” to peek into the private lives of Americans has increased dramatically since Obama became President. In his first two years in office, the number of letters issued doubled;
–Warrantless wiretaps have quadrupled during Obama’s presidency;
–Although he campaigned to put an end to abuses from the rights-robbing USA Patriot Act, Obama, after becoming President, supported boosting the act’s already-broad powers.
In January 2010, a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found a “systemic, widespread abuse of power” in the use of National Security Letters and urged greater Congressional oversight and new guidelines to limit use of the letters which require banks, employers and other institutions to turn over private data on Americans without court approval or notification of the citizen under investigation.
“Given this report, there is absolutely no excuse for Congress not to reform the NSL authority during the current Patriot Act debate,” Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Washington Legislative office, said in 2010.
But instead of curbing the abuses, Congress — with support from the White House — gave the FBI and other government agencies more power to invade the privacy of Americans.
In 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, the FBI issued 14,788 NSLs demanding information on 6,114 Americans. In 2010, the letters increased to 24,287 for information on 14,212 citizens.
Although “official” figures for 2011 have not yet been released, sources within the Justice Department tell Capitol Hill Blue that the requests and number of Americans under investigation will probably double once again — a quadruple increase in the first three years of Obama’s presidency.
“Of all the dangerous government surveillance powers that were expanded by the USA Patriot Act the National Security Letter power is one of the most frightening and invasive,” says the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in Washington, DC.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/sniffing-out-privacy-issues-may-be-our-future
05/11/2012
Particle sniffers
Sniffing Out Privacy Issues That May Be In Our future
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Speech, Privacy and Technology Project
• “DHS is also researching the use of body odor as a unique identifier or “odor fingerprint.” In theory, if that panned out, cheap and pervasive sensors could identify you everywhere you go.”
• “House’s “drug czar” in 2006, the government tested sewage from treatment plants in the Washington, D.C. area to measure the amount of trace cocaine that was present. This was done in an effort to estimate the level of drug use in those communities. It did not reveal anything about specific individuals.”
Good point dredd….
“While Senator Franken’s actions are laudable, are they sufficient guard for your 4th Amendment and privacy rights? Or does Congress as a whole need to take more aggressive action to protect citizens over corporations who collude with government to usurp your Constitutional rights?”
Nothing is sufficient except administration compliance in full.
In full means removing any official immunity, and adding criminal prosecutions as well as civil damages lawsuits in full.
People say they die to protect the constitution while the very people they claim to obey, the military/security complex, are very actively taking the constitution down.