-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] FBI San Diego, Drug Investigations and 9/11 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:47:29 -0400 From: Nancy Kramer <nekramer@private> To: declan@private Hello Declan, Maybe you will find this post from one of my security lists interesting. Maybe this person's observations should be part of Politech. Regards, Nancy Kramer >To: kelly.thornton@private >From: "Jason Coombs" <jasonc@private> >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:06:13 +0000 GMT >Cc: Full-Disclosure <full-disclosure@private>, > Antisocial <antisocial@private> >Subject: [Full-disclosure] FBI San Diego, Drug Investigations and 9/11 > >Hello, Kelly. > >I'm writing in response to your article from today in the San Diego >Union-Tribune: > >San Diego FBI Officials Call 9/11 Criticism 'Dead Horse' >http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20050609-2002-terrorfolo.html > >I work as an expert witness in civil and criminal court cases involving >computer forensics and information security. > >In 2003 I became involved as expert witness on behalf of a defendant in a >Federal criminal drug prosecution case in San Diego county. > >In the course of the law enforcement investigation, which occurred prior >to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI computer forensics lab in San Diego assisted >the DEA with Internet wiretaps of the suspects' computers, possibly in >violation of wiretap laws, which at the time had no reference to Internet >type data communications electronic intercepts. > >The defendant was tried and convicted, and the case is now pending appeal. > >During my review of the case on behalf of the defendant, I was shocked to >see how far and how long law enforcement allowed the suspects to operate >their drug operation in San Diego. > >Instead of arresting the suspects when the FBI and DEA had conclusive >proof of crimes, law enforcement seems to have toyed with the suspects, >dragging out the investigation and making it absurdly complicated and >costly. Law enforcement had proof sufficient to convict several months >before the first drug sale occurred in the case, and they sat and watched, >as though they were more interested in playing with their shiny new >computer surveillance toys than in putting an end to the drug crimes in >progress so they could move on to more important things, like the >terrorists known to the CIA to be inside our country, who by coincidence >lived virtually next-door to these drug offenders in San Diego. > >Law enforcement delayed making arrests in this drug case until their >priorities were changed after 9/11. > >Meanwhile, drugs were being manufactured and sold in San Diego within full >video surveillance and other plain view of the FBI and DEA. > >I'm certain that I'm allowed to talk about the case now that it is over, >and the defendant on whose behalf I did my work previously expressed a >willingness to have his case publicized. > >If you're interested in this story, let me know and I can put you in >contact with the defendant in the case. > >He and his criminal associates appeared to be non-violent drug offenders >who became guinea pigs for the development of the FBI and DEA's electronic >intercept investigations techniques, which paved the way for parts of the >PATRIOT Act which subsequently granted authorities additional capabilities >to use computer surveillance technology in ways that I believe are >inappropriate. > >Computer electronic intercepts allow automated intelligence gathering >according to sophisticated automated rules, in effect allowing computers >to do, through the use of secret law enforcement software, what human law >enforcement would never be allowed by law to do themselves. > >For this and other reasons, all electronic intercepts that use computer >software to analyze data (including voice recognition processing of >digital audio) may be a violation of our various Constitutional >protections. They certainly create opportunity for systematic abuses, and >in the absence of a cultural bias toward full disclosure there is very >real possibility of harm to the public interest. > >We all know by now how little effort anyone in the law enforcement >community put into overcoming institutional and case management barriers >that made it culturally, politically, and in some respects legally >impossible within our country to take proactive and imaginative yet >constitutionally-correct actions to advance the early detection of serious >violent crime like 9/11. > >What I find amazing about the case I worked on was the extent to which the >system that we still have today continues to create unproductive barriers >that make law enforcement mistakes and courtroom rules completely >unresponsive to, and disinterested in, positive change and procedural >enlightenment. > >The idea that law enforcement is entitled to have and hold secrets, and >have their transgressions covered up by cooperative judges -- in effect >granting law enforcement the flexibility to make up the rules whenever >they like, which is essentially what the PATRIOT Act has granted free >license to do, and what the Bush administration is now requesting by way >of extensions to PATRIOT -- the idea that these extra powers somehow solve >the underlying systemic problems that allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to >unfold is just wrong. > >It is systemic flaws that cause law enforcement and the courts to invest >huge sums of money into extremely complex and lengthy drug investigations >instead of quickly and efficiently prosecuting small offenses before they >grow into larger ones. > >And it is systemic flaws that allow otherwise-good people who have drug, >debt, and career problems to be destroyed by society rather than receive >help from its protective machinery, all while real threats to public >safety are institutionally ignored. > >This case illustrates better than any I have seen before just how wrong >the double standard is that we apply to non-violent drug offenders. They >are part of society and deserve its protection, yet we assign teams of >people to investigate and watch their activities every minute of every >day, track their movements with GPS and wireless technology, and intercept >all of their communications, all according to a belief that these people >are a threat to, rather than a part of, America. > >Such persons are a part of America and need protection from themselves, >perhaps. They are certainly a part of America whose problems should not be >permitted unnecessarily to grow to the point that they cause harm to >others. Strangely, harm to others was a foregone conclusion made not by >the drug offenders but by lawmakers,law enforcement, the public, and the >courts, who see fit to create millions of dollars of financial burden for >taxpayers over the lifetime of a career criminal rather than intervene >when common sense says the public's intervention has a chance to >rehabilitate the offender. > >Does the offender not deserve protection from the harmful psychological >and biochemical effects of the very drugs that become their ticket to a >mandatory life sentence in Federal prison? > >Drug offenders who appear to represent little or no threat to the public >safety other than their own drug addictions and lack of access to >conventional employment, whom could in fact be set straight as productive >law-abiding rehabilitated members of society at a fraction of the cost of >merely investigating their criminal activities much less prosecuting and >then handling appeals court procedures concerning them, these people >receive a huge percentage of taxpayers' law enforcement and public safety >money. > >We entrust a needlessly-complex system with their care and protection >without making an effort to know what that system is doing, and we are now >giving that system more license to operate in secret, based on the idea >that these people are the enemy. > >It just may be the case that increasingly our own decisions and >misjudgments are the real enemy, yet we ensure that we are never >confronted with this possibility by the degree to which we demonize all >criminals and removing from them their status first and foremost as human >beings who obviously have serious problems. > >That the defendant in the instant case clearly does not have a malicious >desire to harm others should mean something but it does not. He will most >likely remain a prisoner for the rest of his life, as a direct result of >the misguided priorities of the system of criminal law and justice that we >have created today. > >It was imminently within the grasp of the justice system during the year >2000 to put a stop to a growing drug offense very early in its >development, giving the drug offenders access to care and a prison >sentence that would have been less than the rest of their natural lives, >and in so doing free up the very resources in San Diego that would have >been capable, and were entrusted with the responsibility, to find and stop >terrorists operating in San Diego. > >The FBI in San Diego missed the opportunity to stop 9/11 because they were >busy wasting taxpayer money allowing drugs to be sold in San Diego just so >they could get a bigger prison sentence for the offenders and so they >could practice and perfect their computer skills. > >We, the people who allow this government to operate on our behalf in this >manner and without our oversight or involvement, we are to blame for this >systemic problem just as much if not more than the hard-working and >honorable law enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect us. > >I can assure you from first-hand observation that the systemic flaws >remain, and that unless they are solved there will be more negative >consequences of expanding the power of law enforcement to act in secret in >order to comply with our country's senseless mandates that compel us to >create as many prisoners as possible. > >Sincerely, > >Jason Coombs >jasonc@private >http://www.science.org/jcoombs/ >_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 19:51:53 PDT