Showing posts with label DHS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DHS. Show all posts

15 December, 2012

The all-seeing government

Elements of the US government assume everyone is a terrorist, and has authority to mine every data base associated with, or accessed by, the government as a whole to maintain surveillance on everyone's behavior, looking for (as yet unannounced) "suspicious patterns" and making predictions of future activity.

united states currency eye- IMG_7364_web
united states currency eye- IMG_7364_web (Photo credit: kevindean)
After the somewhat-farcical (and some claim, contrived) case of the "underwear bomber"the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC--leave it to the government to misspell an acronym) requested to maintain a dragnet that made even the Department of Homeland Security uneasy.  After long insider arguments, the Wall Street Journal Reports, that access was granted in March of this year.

According to the DHS privacy officer this a "sea change" in which the first question to be asked by the feds of any citizen is now "are they a terrorist?"  The legislative counsel of the ACLU describes it like this:

What if a government spy agency had power to copy and data mine information about ordinary Americans from any government database? This could include records from law enforcement investigations, health information, employment history, travel and student records. Literally anything the government collects would be fair game, and the original agency in charge of protecting the privacy of those records would have little say over whether this happened, or what the spy agency did with the information afterward. What if that spy agency could add commercial information, anything it – or any other federal agency – could buy from the huge data aggregators that are monitoring our every move? 
What if it wasn’t just collection but also sharing? Anything that was reasonably believed to be necessary to “protect the safety or security of persons, property or organizations” or “protect against or prevent a crime or threat to national security” could be shared. Imagine the dissemination was essentially unlimited, not just to federal, state, local or foreign governments but also to individuals or entities that are not part of the government 
It has already happened.
And almost no one seems to care. Even working on the assumption that the motives of everyone involved in this are pure, it's setting up a weapon in the name of national security aimed not at "the terrorists," but at everyone.  In fact, if anyone would be safe from this it would be a skilled terrorist. It shines the light on the trivial at the expense of what might actually be useful, if the system were focused and operated in keeping with constitutional safeguards.  It promises predictability.  It delivers chaos.  And in the meantime, it places whatever data exists--whether true or not--combined and analyzed by whatever algorithm is applied--however imperfect or biased--into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats--no matter how stupid or evil--to do with as they will.

Who needs terrorists?  Who nees to look outside for threats?  They don't: they have us.  And we don't: we have them.


US Counterterrorism Agency Collects Data On Every US Citizen - Business Insider

12 June, 2012

The US in context: we're number eighty-eight!

 There's Global Peace Index each year, calculated by the Institute for Economics and Peace on the basis of
...23 indicators, ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights. The index has been tested against a range of potential “drivers” or determinants of peace—including levels of democracy and transparency, education and material wellbeing. The team has used the latest available figures from a wide range of respected sources, including the International Institute of Strategic Studies, The World Bank, various UN entities, Peace Institutes and the Economist Intelligence Unit.
So where's the US?  Number 88 out of 153, between Equatorial Guinea and China.  (Within the US the most peaceful state is Maine and the least is Louisiana.)  Key factors bringing down the rating for the US are deaths in foreign wars, percent of population in prison, access to weapons, political terror, and weapons exports.  On the bright side, violent crime is low, and so is political instability.  Here's the map:
So it could be worse--but I can't say I'm proud of the company we keep.

Global peace index 2012: the full list | News | guardian.co.uk
Enhanced by Zemanta

04 June, 2012

The FBI: Bringing more and bigger terrorism to you

The New York Times estimates that of the "22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations."  This may be conservative--but we can use it as a minimum standard for analysis.  And what do these stings look like?

THE informer, Shahed Hussain, had been charged with fraud, but avoided prison and deportation by working undercover in another investigation. He was being paid by the F.B.I. to pose as a wealthy Pakistani with ties to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist group that Mr. Cromitie apparently had never heard of before they met by chance in the parking lot of a mosque. 
“Brother, did you ever try to do anything for the cause of Islam?” Mr. Hussain asked at one point.“O.K., brother,” Mr. Cromitie replied warily, “where you going with this, brother?” 
Two days later, the informer told him, “Allah has more work for you to do,” and added, “Revelation is going to come in your dreams that you have to do this thing, O.K.?” About 15 minutes later, Mr. Hussain proposed the idea of using missiles, saying he could get them in a container from China. Mr. Cromitie laughed. 
Reading hundreds of pages of transcripts of the recorded conversations is like looking at the inkblots of a Rorschach test. Patterns of willingness and hesitation overlap and merge. “I don’t want anyone to get hurt,” Mr. Cromitie said, and then explained that he meant women and children. “I don’t care if it’s a whole synagogue of men.” It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues. 
“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.

There are real terrorists, but not enough to justify the expense and systematic loss of liberty associated with the "war on terror."*  How many "terrorists" are incompetent losers looking for a cause to latch on to, pushed by government agents to commit acts which will, when "uncovered," build budgets and careers?  

25 May, 2012

So why bother?

Brian Michael Jenkins has been thinking and writing about terrorism since the 1970s, back before anyone else gave the phenomenon the attention it deserves.  He has a better sense of perspective on the "war on terror" and the homeland security state than anyone I know.  So when he takes on Senator Carl Levin on the anti-liberty provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, he not only deserves to be taken seriously, he should be applauded for the calm and reasoned way he mops the floor with the Senator and his claims.  Foreign Affairs (subscription required) has been printing their ongoing debate.  If you can get to it (students, check the library), it's worth a look, or you can get a sense of where it has gone through the selections available to the public.  My favorite quote, from Jenkins:
Senator Carl Levin argued in these pages that the NDAA changes nothing. If that were true, there would have been no reason to pass the bill.
The Senator, on the other hand, comes off looking like something of a cross between a fool and a cynic.  I don't suppose there's any surprise there.

A Final Word on the NDAA | Foreign Affairs

27 January, 2012

It's for your own good

Department of Homeland Security
Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr
Yeah, right.

A recent Freedom of Information  Act suit by the Electronic Privacy Information Center reveals some of the fun the Department of Homeland Security has been having in the name of "protecting" us--or whoever they think they're protecting.  According to the findings

...the DHS has hired and instructed General Dynamics to monitor political dissent and the dissenters. The range of websites listed as being monitored is quite impressive...
***
Some of the more high profile and highly trafficked sites being monitored include the comments sections of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News. In addition, social networking sites Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are being monitored. For the first time, the public not only has an idea who the DHS is pursuing with their surveillance and where, but what they are looking for as well. General Dynamics contract requires them to “[identify] media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities.” The DHS also instructed General Dynamics to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.” In other words, the DHS wants to know who you are if you say anything critical about the government.
You better watch out, you better not cry.  They know when you've been sleeping, they know when you're awake.  They know if you've been "bad" or "good" (by their definition), so be good for goodness sake.



Enhanced by Zemanta