« ISBS Tech Guide: Windows Vista Security | Main | Another blow to privacy… »
Where’s the Civil Rights Discussion?
By Brian | May 9, 2007 | Share on Facebook
Yesterday, we learned about two violations of our civil liberties, the latest evidence of a much publicized trend that has earned the Bush administration their reputation as constitution shredders. Ironically, these particular offenses seem to have gone largely unnoticed.
The first involved a group of six friends, including three brothers who owned a simple roofing business, a Philadelphia taxi driver, and a convenience store clerk. The brothers are illegal aliens, two others are here on green cards, and the taxi driver is a U.S. citizen. In January of 2006, one of these men brought a video cassette into a local video store and asked to have it copied onto DVD. The video happened to be footage of arabic men shooting assault rifles and yelling “Allah-o-Akbar” and “Jihad!” and the customer happened to be of muslim descent. Based on this purely circumstantial evidence, the FBI infiltrated this group of friends and tracked them for sixteen months, including putting them under video surveillance during trips they took to the Pocono mountains.
We only learned about it yesterday when this came to light:
The suspects conducted surveillance of Fort Dix and other U.S. military installations in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, plotting attacks inspired by an international call for holy war against the West, officials said.
“My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of American soldiers, light up four or five Humvees full of soldiers,” [a U.S. attorney] quoted one of the suspects as saying.
They also discussed attacking two U.S. warships when they docked in Philadelphia and staging an attack on the annual Army-Navy college football game, prosecutors said.
[The FBI] obtained computer files [including] the wills of at least two of the 19 hijackers who carried out the September 11 attacks [and] images of Osama bin Laden urging viewers to join their movement.
Fascinating that no one is complaining about the FBI’s egregious actions in this case.
The other event we learned about yesterday involves the data mining of U.S. citizens to determine what news articles they are reading, in order to “determine hidden patterns of uses.” You’ll recall the public outcry over this kind of analysis by the TSA for no-fly lists, by the federal government over Microsoft & Yahoo’s search results to prosecute online pornography, and by the NSA for obtaining phone records of known terrorists. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times even won a Pulitzer Prize in December, 2005 for their investigative reporting on the subject.
But this time, the New York Times is silent on the issue. Why? Because it’s The New York Times that’s doing the data mining. Janet Robinson, the Times’ president and CEO calls the R&D department, who came up with the idea, “a concept unique in the industry.”
Jeff Porten and I had several long debates on the subject back in May of 2006. His argument at the time was that searching the entire population for patterns is invasive because it gives them the ability to search for a particular individual. Specifically in the search engine case, the concern was not so much about the Yahoo checking up on what I was searching for, but about the government one day requiring that data via subpeona to make a case against an individual. Surely the same concern applies here, no?
Topics: News and/or Media, Political Rantings | 4 Comments »
My issue here isn’t with the FBI. Presumably, after receiving the tip, they did an initial investigation and only went to the full-court press when they believed this group was dangerous. Personally, it seems to me that a group of six guys attacking a military base would be a self-correcting problem is very short order, but since the FBI couldn’t know their target in advance, an investigation is reasonable.
OTOH, I fully expect that when this goes to court, we’ll learn that these people were thoroughly incompetent (as we’ve learned of other “terror cells”), and that while they have broken laws and deserve prosecution, the actual danger was near zero.
My issue is with the continued East Germanification of America, as indicated by the Stasi-like effect of the video store reporting in to the FBI. The FBI’s actions after the tip are reasonable; the tip itself is not, and is directly attributable to administration policies of “fear your neighbors and report everyone to the government.” That’s more damaging to American society than an attack on an army base would be.
My mind goes immediately to that group in the Michael Moore movie – the one that met regularly to bake cookies and tell stories about their grandkids. They were shocked & dismayed to learn that a long time member of the group was an undercover FBI agent who had infiltrated their group to spy on them from within. So my question to you is this: given that the FBI doesn’t know ahead of time which group bakes cookies and which wants to attack army bases, are you OK with both decisions? If not, what do you see as the difference between the two?
OTOH, I fully expect that when this goes to court, we’ll learn that these people were thoroughly incompetent (as we’ve learned of other “terror cells”), and that while they have broken laws and deserve prosecution, the actual danger was near zero.
I see this as the ironic side effect of the “climate of fear” governing style the Bushies get slammed for time & again. So many examples of terror cells that turned out to be mostly harmless (Hey…check out the Douglas Adams reference!) have led you to believe that none of these groups could ever really be dangerous. It brings to mind the old “we only have to be wrong once” line…
The FBI’s actions after the tip are reasonable; the tip itself is not, and is directly attributable to administration policies of “fear your neighbors and report everyone to the government.” That’s more damaging to American society than an attack on an army base would be.
I see what you’re saying, but those who’s families work on the army base would likely disagree with you.
More generally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the video clerk calling the authorities with something he thought was suspicious, as long as the FBI has the right filters in place to leave innocent people alone when they encounter them. That, unfortunately, involves trusting the FBI.
I find it extremely interesting (and a bit shocking) that you’re criticizing a private citizen’s legal actions as “damaging to society.” That sounds like a very slippery slope to me. Couldn’t someone with an opposite political point to yours say the same thing about a whole host of non-anti-Muslim activities (e.g., a video store owner who hired a Muslim clerk who didn’t report the suspicious videotape could be deemed “damaging to American society,” since he puts the Fort Dix soldiers at risk for hiring those nasty, horrible Muslims…) That sounds like the path toward interment camps again, no?
So my question to you is this: given that the FBI doesn’t know ahead of time which group bakes cookies and which wants to attack army bases, are you OK with both decisions? If not, what do you see as the difference between the two?
No, I’m not, and there’s an obvious difference. The US has only rarely created thoughtcrimes, and the two examples I can think of offhand (nuclear weapons and kiddie porn) are apolitical. The danger of infiltrating groups based on their political opposition to US policies, or the US itself, is in making some ideas equivalent to thoughtcrimes — of which McCarthyism is the best example.
The trick for the FBI — and I’m not denying this is difficult — is to make their decisions involving the use of their limited resources such that they are targeted at those people who are most likely to present a physical danger. Any time such resources are incorrectly aimed at political dangers, they not only subvert our freedom themselves, but they make it more likely that any actual physical dangers will go unnoticed.
Example: tomorrow I set up a nonprofit dedicated to the political overthrow of the US. This is not only allowed, it is protected by law so long as I don’t advocate military means. I hold a conference at which several speakers do call for military overthrow; makes no difference, as their individual speech is protected, and my organization is not necessarily supporting their position.
How do I think the FBI should respond to this? Brainstorming:
1) Should they infiltrate my organization? On the theory that my group will bring some of the nutcases out of the woodwork, a casual eyeballing wouldn’t be a bad idea. If I’ve got public membership, not a bad idea to sign someone up to get my mailings. But sending over a mole to work in my office is going too far, as I’m not breaking any laws nor am I giving sufficient reason to believe I am.
2) Should they attend my conference? Absolutely, on the “magnet to the nutcases” theory. And should they note one of the pro-military speakers talking to someone else who in known to funnel money to bad guys (and they’re foolish enough to do it in public), that could be grounds for opening a more intensive file on those people; much less so on my organization, though, unless I’m in that conversation.
3) Should they tap my phones, bug my conference, or follow me around? Of course not; in fact, that would be a violation of my civil rights. They can do this after they have sufficient cause from the more casual methods above.
You’ll note that I’ve already hinted (by calling public conversation “foolish”) that it’s quite possible for bad guys to get the ball rolling here in a way that the FBI would miss it; this is intentional. At the level of public discourse, the FBI is limited on what they can or should do; there are other mechanisms by which they can catch people early if a warning sign is missed here.
I see this as the ironic side effect of the “climate of fear” governing style the Bushies get slammed for time & again. So many examples of terror cells that turned out to be mostly harmless have led you to believe that none of these groups could ever really be dangerous.
Oh, don’t be silly. As I’ve demonstrated before, I’m extremely creative in thinking up ways that people can be dangerous. In fact, I think many people are dangerous in ways that the government presently does not recognize, because they’re leading to dangerous erosions in civil liberties. Thanks to an idiot with explosives in his shoes, I can’t take a Zippo to Las Vegas; more importantly, we’ve set up mechanisms whereby some people can’t go to Las Vegas.
It brings to mind the old “we only have to be wrong once” line…
And here we come to one of the most dangerous ideas of all. Brian, any system that requires human perfection is doomed to failure. Humans are fallible. We are going to have false positives and false negatives, period. A sane solution acknowledges this and protects us collectively from ourselves. You do this with oversight and checks-and-balances, not by offering unlimited power to fallible people to exercise in secret.
I see what you’re saying, but those who’s families work on the army base would likely disagree with you.
Saving this one for later.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the video clerk calling the authorities with something he thought was suspicious, as long as the FBI has the right filters in place to leave innocent people alone when they encounter them. That, unfortunately, involves trusting the FBI.
Exactly, and there is mounting evidence that they don’t have those filters. You seem to think that I have an issue with trusting the FBI, or any law enforcement agency — this is very far from the truth. Living in DC, and attending security conferences, I’ve met many people on the sharp end of these issues, and I’ve been uniformly impressed by their dedication (and in many cases, their concerns for exactly the same issues I have).
The problem with this video clerk is that it’s quite far down the road of a crime similar to “driving while black”. Our government has done a great deal to make sure that people are on the lookout for DWB-type “crimes”, and damned little about the London Blitz-style preparation that could really make a difference in our safety. (Ted Koppel made an excellent, similar point in a recent NPR podcast, which I’m not finding right now thanks to being on a slow net connection.)
I find it extremely interesting (and a bit shocking) that you’re criticizing a private citizen’s legal actions as “damaging to society.
Oh, that’s easy. There are any number of legal actions which are damaging to society, and most of them should remain legal. But this exemplifies why it’s so important to have bedrock rights and liberties in the Constitution to trump the occasional excesses of the federal government and the states. If we had a more generally recognized right to privacy, I’d be much more comfortable with many of these abuses, as I’d feel more secure that they would eventually be turned back at the dangerous edges. In its absence, though, it’s quite likely that we’ll end up living in a police state that we continue to call a free country.
Couldn’t someone with an opposite political point to yours say the same thing about a whole host of non-anti-Muslim activities (e.g., a video store owner who hired a Muslim clerk who didn’t report the suspicious videotape could be deemed “damaging to American society,” since he puts the Fort Dix soldiers at risk for hiring those nasty, horrible Muslims…) That sounds like the path toward interment camps again, no?
We’re making the same point — if people start thinking of “report out-of-the-ordinary events” as “having the wrong skin color or accent”, then we’re in deep trouble. (More pragmatically, at the very least it means flooding the FBI et al. with many false leads.)
The key distinction has to be not “who people are”, but “what people do”. But since people “are” things constantly and “do” things irregularly, it’s much easier to start profiling folks based on the wrong parameters.
There are controls in place that we’ve discussed before (e.g., warrants) to protect civil liberties, such that we can allow the FBI the lattitude to make these calls.
You also keep going back to the idea of profiling (“thoughtcrime,” “driving while black,” “having the wrong skin color/accent,” “who people are vs. what people do”) which you use to criticize the clerk’s reporting the men and my suggestion that your default assumption of “probably not dangerous” is a slippery slope.
I should point out that these men had already purchased rocket-propelled grenades, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, had already staked out Fort Dix, as well as other U.S. military installations in New Jersey, Delaware and Pensnylvania, told the FBI mole that they wanted to “hit a heavy concentration of American soldiers [by lighting] up four of five Humvees full of soldiers” and were finally arrested when they tried to buy additional illegal weapons from an undercover law enforcement officer.
There was plenty of “what they do” involved here, in addition to the “who they are.” Personally, I’d rather solve the “too many false leads” problem than the “people don’t say anything out of white-guilt” problem, which seems to be what you’re advocating.
FamilyGreenberg.Com is proudly powered by WordPress.
The template is from RFDN and has been modified extensively by yours truly
Here is the RSS feed for the Entries and here is the RSS feed for the Comments