I just read in the Wall Street Journal about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). I doubt if most citizens even knew it existed. However it is in the "hot seat" now! Here's info from Wikipedia: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:. It is pretty clear that the PCLOB is pretty much overwhelmed with their responsibility and limited resources available to them. See this blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/a_problem_with.html Yeah, terrorism is one of the worse invasions of privacy and civil liberties -- however we shouldn't just give "carte blanch" to our defense & police agencies. It is important to strike a balance.
Yes, all of the agencies should be required to publish a plan for how they handle privacy and civil liberties. The plan should be updated every 4 or 5 years --that is eternity in compared to our technology revolution. The "top level" plans should be unclassified. However the agencies can have classified plans that are "consistent" with the top level plan. Those top and second level plans should be reviewed by the PCLOB, and at least one committee from Congress and the Senate as well as being approved by the Attorney General.
Then, the agencies should be held to following their plans. They should be audited by their own inspector general, and have sample inspections done by the Attorney General and the GAO.
The PCLOB should have it's staff beefed up to be able to handle this responsibility. It should also be required to publish a report to Congress, at least every two years, that describes the status of the agencies in writing their plans, getting them approved and how well they are actually following their own plans
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Poll: NSA Oversight Is Inadequate, Most Americans Say
Snowden has sparked a lively discussion about the complex trade-offs between American's right to privacy and protection from terrorists. This article in Huffington Post now points out that most people are upset that NSA is spying on us. Poll: NSA Oversight Is Inadequate, Most Americans Say: Andrew Bracevich wrote an editorial that asks the question: Are Snowden and Manning heroes or criminals?
However, I believe the problem could be much larger than just NSA. The current "flap" is about NSA listening in on international communications and accidentally picking up American citizens communications and metadata. However, FBI, DEA, Treasury Dept, IRS, Border Patrol, etc all have opportunities to gather similar data and make similar "mistakes." State and local agencies also have huge databases of metadata and opportunities to use it inappropriately. Sandag in San Diego has a database of all car license plates and their locations over the past two years. Freeway and bridge tolling companies know every vehicle that passed by. Telephone companies have all billing records. Credit card companies have records of everything we ever purchased. All of this information could be very valuable in catching or prosecuting bad guys. But it could also be abused.
I also believe that we won't be protected from abuse as long as oversight is only performed by a secret court, by secret judges, with secret results. I'm sure that if the Government intentionally or accidentally listened in on my telephone conversation, or read my e-mail, they would want that fact to be kept secret "forever." The agency would argue that it would not want it's espionage methods and procedures to be made public, because it could tip the hands of people with something to hide. However unless judges know that at some time in the future their decisions will be made public, they will not make balanced decisions.
The databases of metadata, and the new technologies are a treasure trove for law enforcement. It would be crazy to not be able to take advantage of them when fighting crime, whether it is terrorism or income tax evasion. On the other hand, we need to implement adequate checks & balances in the system to protect citizens from inappropriate violations of privacy.
The only way of doing that is to:
1. Establish a system that is clearly open, with accountable judges and staff who rotate frequently
2. Document public guidelines for use of these new technologies, and allow for "secret" guidelines that implement those public guidelines
3. Require declassification of collection and use of these data within reasonable timelines and allow FOIA requests for those data. For example, I should be able to find out if NSA intentionally or inadvertently listened to my phone call 5 years ago.
However, I believe the problem could be much larger than just NSA. The current "flap" is about NSA listening in on international communications and accidentally picking up American citizens communications and metadata. However, FBI, DEA, Treasury Dept, IRS, Border Patrol, etc all have opportunities to gather similar data and make similar "mistakes." State and local agencies also have huge databases of metadata and opportunities to use it inappropriately. Sandag in San Diego has a database of all car license plates and their locations over the past two years. Freeway and bridge tolling companies know every vehicle that passed by. Telephone companies have all billing records. Credit card companies have records of everything we ever purchased. All of this information could be very valuable in catching or prosecuting bad guys. But it could also be abused.
I also believe that we won't be protected from abuse as long as oversight is only performed by a secret court, by secret judges, with secret results. I'm sure that if the Government intentionally or accidentally listened in on my telephone conversation, or read my e-mail, they would want that fact to be kept secret "forever." The agency would argue that it would not want it's espionage methods and procedures to be made public, because it could tip the hands of people with something to hide. However unless judges know that at some time in the future their decisions will be made public, they will not make balanced decisions.
The databases of metadata, and the new technologies are a treasure trove for law enforcement. It would be crazy to not be able to take advantage of them when fighting crime, whether it is terrorism or income tax evasion. On the other hand, we need to implement adequate checks & balances in the system to protect citizens from inappropriate violations of privacy.
The only way of doing that is to:
1. Establish a system that is clearly open, with accountable judges and staff who rotate frequently
2. Document public guidelines for use of these new technologies, and allow for "secret" guidelines that implement those public guidelines
3. Require declassification of collection and use of these data within reasonable timelines and allow FOIA requests for those data. For example, I should be able to find out if NSA intentionally or inadvertently listened to my phone call 5 years ago.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Asset Forfeiture has been part of the fun of being in the police department or being a prosecutor. It was first touted as a "tool" for law enforcement to use to try to penalize the "bad guys" --however law enforcement and prosecutors have found it to be rewarding to them, because they can "keep" some of the funds they are able to obtain through forfeiture. Not only does the agency get to keep some funds, but the governmental entity also gets a share. This provides a feedback loop where the government can "praise" the law enforcement unit for raising badly needed funds. What has happened is that the police and prosecutors have continued to abuse this "tool" and are now infringing on American's freedoms.
Last August Steve Greenhut wrote a ccolumnolumn on why it was still on the rise.
Why Asset Forfeiture Abuse Is on the Rise - Reason.com:
Today, he wrote another, very good column that explains why public officials become profiteers: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/12/greenhut-forfeiture-law-abuse/ Brad Reid had a recent wrap up of recent forfeitures' in a Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/civil-asset-forfeiture-ch_b_3745209.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews. Steve Lopez wrote a piece on the injustice of the Anaheim forfeiture: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0825-lopez-busted-20130825,0,5226624.column
I think most Americans would agree that a criminal should not get to keep "ill gotten gains" -- however I believe that everyone would also agree that the determination of "ill gotten" should be left to courts. Before assets are given to an agency of some level of Government, it should be determined that an individual is guilty. Then, if a court determined that assets were gained by the criminal, then the court should also determine if any of those assets should be returned to victims, or given to some level or agency of the Government. It may make sense, for example for assets to be used to reimburse a prosecutorial or police agency for expenses involved in arresting and prosecuting an individual found to be guilty.
The problem is that if the assets aren't "captured" or "frozen" in some way, between the time the suspect is arrested and charged and subsequently found guilty, the suspect could liquidate those assets. The suspect might even be able to use those assets to help defend against the charges. Therefore, it appears that there needs to be some other form of "trustee" to hold assets that have been seized until the guilt or innocence of the suspect/owner of the assets has been determined by the court. While those assets are being held by a trustee, the trustee must be able to maintain those assets in such a way as to protect the owner/suspect from losing value. For instance, if a building has been seized, the trustee must be empowered to be able to collect rent, make repairs, pay bills etc. If the Government then wins a guilty verdict, and the right to keep the assets, the Government can then liquidate the assets, and pay the trustee for services rendered. If, however, the Government loses the case, and the suspect/owner is found innocent, then the Government should be forced to pay the trustee for services rendered, pay "interest" or "rent" for the use of that property while it has been seized by the Government, and/or compensate the owner/suspect for any loss in value of the seized property.
I think this would be a fair process, and not too difficult to set up within our Government. To do it probably will require some US Supreme Court decisions to make it happen.
Last August Steve Greenhut wrote a ccolumnolumn on why it was still on the rise.
Why Asset Forfeiture Abuse Is on the Rise - Reason.com:
Today, he wrote another, very good column that explains why public officials become profiteers: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/12/greenhut-forfeiture-law-abuse/ Brad Reid had a recent wrap up of recent forfeitures' in a Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/civil-asset-forfeiture-ch_b_3745209.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews. Steve Lopez wrote a piece on the injustice of the Anaheim forfeiture: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0825-lopez-busted-20130825,0,5226624.column
I think most Americans would agree that a criminal should not get to keep "ill gotten gains" -- however I believe that everyone would also agree that the determination of "ill gotten" should be left to courts. Before assets are given to an agency of some level of Government, it should be determined that an individual is guilty. Then, if a court determined that assets were gained by the criminal, then the court should also determine if any of those assets should be returned to victims, or given to some level or agency of the Government. It may make sense, for example for assets to be used to reimburse a prosecutorial or police agency for expenses involved in arresting and prosecuting an individual found to be guilty.
The problem is that if the assets aren't "captured" or "frozen" in some way, between the time the suspect is arrested and charged and subsequently found guilty, the suspect could liquidate those assets. The suspect might even be able to use those assets to help defend against the charges. Therefore, it appears that there needs to be some other form of "trustee" to hold assets that have been seized until the guilt or innocence of the suspect/owner of the assets has been determined by the court. While those assets are being held by a trustee, the trustee must be able to maintain those assets in such a way as to protect the owner/suspect from losing value. For instance, if a building has been seized, the trustee must be empowered to be able to collect rent, make repairs, pay bills etc. If the Government then wins a guilty verdict, and the right to keep the assets, the Government can then liquidate the assets, and pay the trustee for services rendered. If, however, the Government loses the case, and the suspect/owner is found innocent, then the Government should be forced to pay the trustee for services rendered, pay "interest" or "rent" for the use of that property while it has been seized by the Government, and/or compensate the owner/suspect for any loss in value of the seized property.
I think this would be a fair process, and not too difficult to set up within our Government. To do it probably will require some US Supreme Court decisions to make it happen.
Monday, August 5, 2013
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report
This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights. Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:
I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15. It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration. However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division. Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.
I believe there are many other situations like this. The process does seem effective. However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight. I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes. If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:
I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15. It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration. However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division. Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.
I believe there are many other situations like this. The process does seem effective. However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight. I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes. If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report
This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights. Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:
I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15. It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration. However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division. Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.
I believe there are many other situations like this. The process does seem effective. However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight. I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes. If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.
DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:
I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15. It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration. However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division. Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.
I believe there are many other situations like this. The process does seem effective. However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight. I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes. If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)