-------- Original Message -------- 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@private> Reply-To: <jim.harper@private> Organization: Privacilla.org To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private> 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 _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Oct 14 2004 - 20:36:58 PDT