image courtesy of the EFF  

Today the Wall Street Journal announced that it uncovered a new government program ominously dubbed “Perfect Citizen”. The project will bring NSA monitoring equipment to corporate computer networks that the government deems to be “critical infrastructure” with the stated goal of detecting cyber-attacks. Sources familiar with “Perfect Citizen” told the Wall Street Journal that “[the NSA] wouldn’t persistently monitor the whole system”, which is troubling since that statement indicates that the system can be persistently monitored. Since the NSA had no qualms about illegally tapping every phone in America, how can they be trusted not to abuse the “Perfect Citizen” system? In my mind, trusting the NSA with this power is akin to leaving a junkie locked in a room with their drug of choice and telling them not to touch it. For now at least, companies will have to opt-in to allowing the NSA to install sensors onto their networks. However, with the recent Chinese attack on Google held up as an example, what company would choose not to participate in program to “protect national security”, especially if there was any chance of it being leaked that they declined to participate in something called “Perfect Citizen” (ever notice that the more onerous the program or law the more patriotic sounding the name – PATRIOT Act anyone?).

This of course brings me to the obvious poster child for “Perfect Citizen”, Google. At the beginning of this year it came to light that a number of systems belonging to Google, as well as systems of several other large corporations were penetrated by hackers. According to Google (and later persons within the US government as high ranking as Secretary of State Clinton) the attacks originated from China. From the onset the attack was represented to the public as a state sponsored cyber-attack. In fact, the phrase “act of war” was bandied about in some circles. As Google’s investigation progressed (aided by the NSA), however, little supporting evidence was presented despite strong accusations against the Chinese Government. For the world at large the die had been cast, China had attacked US computers. Admittedly, even I accepted Google’s story as fact. At least until this morning when the Wall Street Journal released the details of “Perfect Citizen”. I started thinking, why would China risk such a widespread attack that was certain to be uncovered and could possibly be considered an act of war. Especially in the case of Google where (according to what we were told) the attacks targeted uncovering dissidents, whose identities are almost certainly not worth going to war to uncover.

Read the rest of this entry »

This past December, when the country was distracted by healthcare reform and the awarding of questionable nobel peace prizes, a bill quietly passed the US House of Representatives that flies in the face of one of the most basic tenants that the Unites States was founded on. Introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (pictured left), H.R. 2278 would allow the US to classify any satellite provider that carries broadcasts deemed by the government to be of a terrorist nature as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” and to “consider implementing other punitive measures”. Additionally it says that as a policy the US should “urge” governments and investors to oppose transmitting “terrorist” networks. The bill passed with only 3 dissenting votes and has been sent to committee in the Senate for consideration.

When I first read this bill a chill shot down my spine. I find it utterly repulsive that a bill that instructs the government to limit free speech would even be penned by anyone who took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, even more so by the fact that it passed almost unanimously. Worse still is how vague the language of the bill is. Who is to decide what is a “terrorist” broadcast and what is not. There is nothing to stop the government from labeling any broadcast that is opposed to US foreign policy as “terrorist”. Simply carrying these “terrorist” broadcasts allows the US to label satellite carriers as terrorist organization and/or take “other punitive measures” against them. Does this mean the US will use foreign governments or private contractors to attack networks that will not block broadcasts that are not US approved like we are currently doing to other terrorist organizations overseas? The bill also contains an edict to “urge” investors with the ability to influence what broadcasts the networks carry to block anti-US stations. Will this “urging” be at the barrel of a gun with investors facing being labeled a terrorist, or worse?

As much as I don’t want to be the target of a terrorist action, I am a firm believer in free speech. If someone hates the US with every fiber of their being (and with the recent actions the US has taken it’s easy to see why), I believe they have the right to tell others about it and make their case in a public forum, regardless if they enjoy the protections of our Constitution or not. If this bill passes, it is a slippery slope that will lead to US broadcasts being labeled as terrorist for criticizing the government (we are already labeling US citizens as terrorists and marking them for assassination without trial) and the end of free speech. This bill needs to die before it even reaches the full Senate for a vote, so if your senator is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, please consider urging them to reject this outrageous affront to free speech.

Full Text of H. R. 2278

It is no secret that the government has taken advantage of the 9/11 tragedy and scared the majority of the country into willingly sacrificing their freedom for a false sense of security. Yet, even with the sheeple cowed into compliance, the few remaining “annoyances” required to get unfettered access to the personal information of every US citizen are still apparently too daunting for the fine agents of the FBI. According to information contained in a report released today by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, the FBI routinely ignores the already lenient rules that they are required to follow to obtain phone records.

According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, telecom providers are allowed to immediately provide records in the case of an actual emergency where there is a “reasonable belief” that “an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay.” The FBI expresses this urgent need through what is called an “exigent letter” that is provided to the phone company. While I am not privy to the actual process, I can only imagine that it involves an agent filling in the phone number in question on a form letter and then handing it to a phone company employee (who, believe it or not, works inside the FBI office responsible for handling these requests). While you would imagine that the FBI would be perfectly happy with a system that is devoid of judicial oversight and only requires only writing a letter to gain access to private records, but according to the Inspector General’s report agents routinely obtained records without using an “exigent letter”. In some cases, the phone number in question was merely written down on a Post-It note left on the telecom employee’s desk, other times requests were made verbally.

Additionally, the FBI has developed a new legal “theory” that allows telecoms to divulge information without any judicial process AT ALL! Unfortunately for the American public, the portion of the report dealing with this new theory is heavily redacted. Hidden from view is any discussion of the legal basis for this new claim. Even the section number of the law the FBI feels grants it this power is redacted. This ridiculous secrecy is exactly the opposite of what you would expect from an administration that ran on a platform of hope and promised openness and transparency. Well at least we know that it is business as usual at the Department of Injustice.

FBI Replaced Legal Process with Post-It Notes to Obtain Phone Records