Interesting People mailing list archives
Two on What was in the water at * (read both, who knows we may even agree :-) djf
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:49:33 -0400
Subject: RE: [Politech] Open letter on security, civil liberties from Farber, Dyson, Lemmey [priv] Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:00:22 -0400 From: Jim Harper - Privacilla.org <jim.harper () privacilla org> Reply-To: <jim.harper () privacilla org> Organization: Privacilla.org To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan () well com> Declan: I want to know what was in the water at the meetings of this Markle Foundation Task Force. It seems that every participant came out of there intoning about 1) the need for this 'trusted' information network; and 2) the suitability of various rules and boards for controlling a new government database (albeit a networked one) which will sweep in potentially unlimited data about all Americans' activities. Let's talk about how much this thing is like Total Information Awareness. Section 206 of the Senate-passed intelligence reform bill makes a few casual references to use of private-sector data in this information 'environment'. (An amendment changed the name of this project from "network" to "environment" - to further obscure what's going on, to bring on support from confused greens, or both.) If you want to know what is actually envisioned, look at the Markle Task Force's surveillance roadmap at Appendix H http://www.markletaskforce.org/reports/Report2_Part3.pdf (page 80 of the .pdf / 150 of the document itself): divorce papers, calling card logs, page and text messages, credit card applications, academic records, insurance policies and claims, Web site search histories, licenses of every kind, cable viewing records, prescriptions. I'm just cherry-picking. The list goes on and on. And here are Markle-produced matrices of the laws that need amending so the government surveillance system can lawfully get full access to the data. That is, if the "national security letter" provision of the Patriot Act doesn't survive. http://www.markletaskforce.org/privacyrules.html So let's call a spade a spade. This is Total Information Awareness, rebranded, with the corners smoothed down. 1) Would it work?/Do we need it? That's beyond the pay-grade of all but a seer. I strongly believe that it would cost too much in civil liberties, privacy, autonomy, and everything else we take so much pride in enjoying as Americans. These surveillance programs distract from the real efforts that will suppress terror: human intelligence, hardening infrastructure against likely tools and methods of attack, and the promotion of liberty, literacy, and commerce in countries where terrorist ideologies have taken root. 2) 'Oh, but there are safeguards.' This is what really galls me. As a student of governments and government behavior, I will tell you what the authors of this open letter apparently don't get: Bureaucracies seek to maximize their budgets, and do so by maximizing their power and influence. In translation: rules, protocols, and oversight boards will be impediments to the institutional interests of those operating this surveillance system, including not only the law enforcement/national security bureaucrats, but also the growing number of companies in the surveillance-industrial complex. They will work quietly and diligently over years to dismantle the limits placed on them, making a mockery of the 'careful balance' supposedly struck by the Markle Surveillance Project. If this goes forward, it will be a clear victory for the surveillance state and a clear loss for freedom. I don't doubt the good faith of the authors of this open letter. I doubt their savvy. Where the heck in the Fourth Amendment does it say "General warrants shall issue if the Markle Foundation Task Force says it's OK"? That's where this thing goes if it passes. Jim Jim Harper Editor Privacilla.org and Director of Information Policy Studies The Cato Institute <http://www.politechbot.com/2004/10/14/what-was-in/> From: dave () farber net Subject: Stewart Baker: What's in the water at Cato? [Politech] Date: October 21, 2004 7:43:13 AM EDT tu Baker was a member of the Markle task force: http://www.markletaskforce.org/ --Declan] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's in the water at Cato? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:29:04 -0400 From: sbaker () steptoe com <sbaker () steptoe com> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan () well com> CC: Albertazzie, Sally <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com> Declan,Jim Harper seems to have slept through September 11. In the weeks before the attacks, we identified two of the hijackers as al-Qaeda killers, knew
they were in the country, but couldn't find them -- even though they haddrivers licenses, phones, etc., in their own names. And, until we have a method for rapidly checking private databases for suspects, we still won't
be able to find them.Evidently that's fine with Jim. He'd rather rely on three other techniques, which seem to be teaching Arab kids to read, huddling behind more and higher blast walls, and using something called "human intelligence" -- unaided by
any technical advances made during Steve Jobs's lifetime. Evidently recognizing that nobody else is likely to feel safer under the Harper Three-Point Plan, he also trashes the report by misstating its impact. His claim that dozens of laws will have to be amended is flatwrong. There is already plenty of legal authority for gathering information
from private sources. The charts simply set forth existing law, withoutproposing to water down any of them. In fact, the safeguards recommended by the Markle task force actually add restraints to the government's current
capabilities (a fact that gave me real pause when I was part of the task force). At bottom, the task force recommends that the government use -- with safeguards -- capabilities that the private sector already uses withenthusiasm. If Sprint can already tell that Messrs Atta and al-Hazmi make a
lot of phone calls to each other and to Afghanistan, and can use the information to offer them cheap long-distance, most of us would like our government to use the same information to keep our families alive. Stewart Baker <http://www.politechbot.com/2004/10/18/whats-in-the/> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Two on What was in the water at * (read both, who knows we may even agree :-) djf David Farber (Oct 21)