Privacy: March 2008 Archives

My father's words teach me not to write or share all information about my people, my family, my life. It is not wise to divulge all knowledge, for once given, it no longer is ours. We protect our lives by not giving information. It is one method of survival.
Diane Bird, Santa Domingo Pueblo
from part of a presentation in the Santa Fe Museum of ???

I came upon those words at a museum exhibit in Santa Fe shortly after visiting the Taos Pueblo. If you read the history of the Pueblo people you realize that this is a truth that they have known for hundreds of years. Long before the "information age," the Pueblo people knew that their knowledge was the key to their survival against intruders. Later in the week we visited Mesa Verde, once home to Anasazi ("ancient ones"). Our guide was Pueblo, and he happily detailed all of the anthropological theories about who the Anasazi were, how they lived, and what they used the various rooms for. But ask him for his own theories, as someone who grew up in a home very much like this one, with the same construction, the same kivas, the same ancestors, and he would shake his head, tap his brow, and say only, "Think about it. These were people like you and me. What would you do?". Information is not something to be handed out freely; then or now.

Originally published in my Buzz 'zine on commons.somewhere.com, August 23, 1998.

This paper was written for my 10th grade English class. We were given a choice of topics and allowed to argue either side. We researched the topics and made notes, but the final paper had to be written in class, which left no time for proof-reading or editing down. There was a problem with the file server, so I was unable to save my paper. This version was scanned in from the printed copy, and may have additional errors as a result.

Shireen Hinckley
Waddell/E Block

Wiretapping: Is it Worth the Cost?

Although the government often thinks that they know the best way to deal with threats, deciding to take the entirety of the problem into their own hands, this can often lead to more trouble than anticipated. The United States was set up by our founding fathers with checks and balances, and recently, these have been ignored for the cause to fight terrorism. As Bruce Schneier said, "Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government. Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies... Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the executive branch."(3) The executive branch responded to a terrorist attack by exciting the American public, and making them even more terrified by exagerrating the situation. Through manipulating this fear, the government was able to pass laws and form secret orginizations that before, would never have been sanctioned. One of these was permitting close surveillance of the American public, including wiretapping. Their excuse for this was saying that it would aid greatly in finding and capturing terrorists, and give the people more security. Uncontrolled wiretapping hurts security by providing too much unfocused information; leading to the arrest of innocent people, taking away constitutional rights, drawing resources away from focused investigations, and creating opportunities for abuse and corruption.

Too much unfocused information leads to arrests of unassociated, innocent people and through manipulating paranoia, the government takes away basic constitutional rights. Although government officials claim that wiretapping helps find terrorist workers all over the country, in reality it is messy and inefficient. As Schneier said in "Uncle Sam is Listening, the technology works similar to a vacuum cleaner, "sucking up a staggering amount of voice, fax, and data communications... from all over the world: an estimated 3 billion communications per day. These communications are then processed through... data-mining technologies, which look for simple phrases like 'assassinate the president"(9) These simple phrases will get caught up in casual emails or conversations and can put any innocent American citizen on the suspect list. This limits our rights of free speech and press. Many people do not care that the government is watching their every move, saying that they have "nothing to hide." This innocence cannot save a victim once he has arrested for terrorism, because the government throws out all normal procedure for criminals, such as a phone call or a trial. This was the case of Canadian software engineer Maher Arar, who also holds a Syrian citizenship. Arar, while switching flights in New York to return to Ottawa from Damascus, was detained in JFK airport in Brooklyn as a presumed Al Qaeda terrorist, and then sent to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. "Arar, who denies any terror links and was never charged with a crime, charges the US government with violating the Torture Victim Protection Act and his Fifth Amendment right to due process."(7) Although Both the Canadian and Syrian governments now say Arar has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group, the US government it still adamant with its accusation, although it has presented no proof to the court. Arar was even named by the Canadian edition of Time Magazine as the "Newsmaker of the year," calling him "a symbol of how fear and injustice have permeated life in the West since 9/11 ."(7) His case is not the only one that accuses the US government of illegal workings; the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing them collaborating with the National Security Agency. This program's purpose was to wiretap Americans' communications without court oversight; violating the law and the privacy of its customers. These actions were in infringing the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Evidence soon revealed that the surveillance began before September of 2001, giving NSA no right to claim they were searching for terrorists, as it was not a valid threat at that time. "EFF 's case includes undisputed evidence that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility... in San Francisco that made copies of all emails, web browsing and other internet traffic to and from AT&T customers, and provided those copies to the NSA."(6) When the government and AT&T attempted to dismiss the case on the basis of state secrets, they were rejected, the judge saying, "the compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security." (6) The American public was violated and no amount of security is worth that destruction of privacy. The government cannot be trusted to always do right, as it is not run by supernatural beings. They too will make mistakes as with Arar. The more power the government has, the more they can misuse that power, and the bigger the mistakes can get.

Needless wiretapping and surveillance techniques cause more harm than good by drawing resources away from focused investigations and creating mistrust of the judicial system. The United States is not the only country wiretapping its people. After September 11th, other countries made similar precautions, such as Germany. Niels Sorrells explained the situation in Germany in "German Tap Lessons" saying, "German authorities cannot point to a single successful prosecution of a terror suspect identified from... blind wiretaps. The colossal volume of information produced from tens of thousands of these taps often obscures real threats, while dead ends are pursued. Authorities quite simply do not have the time to listen to and process it all. In the one case in which such surveillance was used to detect a terror plot... the authorities-thanks to old-fashioned investigative methods-already knew the identities of the... plotters. It's hardly a ringing endorsement for the kind of all-encompassing, warrantless surveillance that the United States government wants its citizens to accept. (4) Many times, rather than surveillance techniques aiding in investigations, it jeopardizes them. When certain laws are overlooked or broken, there are eventually consequences. Discoveries concerning organizations such as the NSA make many people question the true motives of other wiretapping programs that are supposedly put there to fight terrorism. "In criminal cases that can put terrorists behind bars, judges now have to worry that evidence was based on illegal wiretaps. Evidence might be excluded or convictions overturned."(8) Courts often do not know when to believe the government when it says where evidence has come from, and in numerous cases the government refuses to reveal even that, claiming it is a matter of national security, as they did in the case with Maher Arar. Judges who believe in the rule of law may feel obligated to be stricter with the government when they cannot trust its statements. This mistrust leads to lack of cooperation and less efficient trials, hindering the prosecution of terrorists rather than helping it. Not only does wiretapping hinder prosecution of terrorists, it wastes valuable investigative resources. "A January 17 story in the New York Times highlighted the huge amount of time and resources devoted to the program, apparently with minimal results. In the days after 9/11, the FBI decided to follow up on every lead... Long lists of phone numbers continued to be generated by the NSA program, however. According to a senior prosecutor: 'It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads. "'(8) Even after September 11th, "the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more calls to Pizza Hut."(8) Although the government tries to convince the American people that their surveillance techniques are helpful to finding terrorists, the chance is one in a million. They are wasting resources and money chasing ghosts and dead ends, rarely finding any plausible suspects.

Opportunities for abuse and corruption arise when the government suddenly has the ability to retrieve boundless information on any individual. The Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War made the government have to quickly cover its tracks by weakening the man who distributed them in the eyes of the public. Daniel Ellsberg turned himself in to the FBI, and the administration saw this as an opportunity to weaken the Democratic party. President Nixon decided the only way they could make Ellsberg and the Democratic party weaker was to leak damaging information to the press. The project was named the "plumbers" and their goal was to do surveillance on Democratic members of the government and collect information illegally that could potentially damage their reputation and prestige. On September 3, 1971, under orders from the White House, the "plumbers" burglarized the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding. Because of the resources the administration had at their fingertips, they were able to manipulate the power they had in order to hurt Ellsberg's reputation and claims in court. The burglary and other unlawful surveillance activities were discovered, and Ellsberg was let go on account "unprecedented' government misconduct" which had "incurably infected the prosecution of [the] case. (5) President Nixon complained; "the sonofabitching thief is made a national hero and is going to get off on mistrial. And the New York Times gets a Pulitzer Prize for stealing documents... What in the name of God have we come to? (5) With the power the American people give to the government, they can manipulate it to serve their own ends. They have the ability to incriminate any individual, never getting caught. The United States government is not the only thing that would be able to manipulate wiretapping and surveillance technologies. In fact, the very people that they were supposed to protect against are able to employ it, using it for their own means. In Greece, this is exactly what had happened; "Unknowns tapped the mobile phones of about 100 Greek politicians and offices, including the U.S. embassy in Athens and the Greek prime minister" and later evidence revealed that the criminals actually used the code that was designed into the system; "It's [the] eavesdropping code [that was] put into the system for the police. The attackers managed to bypass the authorization mechanisms of the eavesdropping system, and activate the 'lawful interception' module in the mobile network. They then redirected about 100 numbers to 14 shadow numbers they controlled."2 This code was put into place to search for these terrorists, and they managed to manipulate it to serve their own means. Installing these wiretapping devices harmed the government rather than helped it, and caused more problems than there was originally.

The administration and executive power has taken too much power and ignored the judicial checks that our founding fathers put into place two hundred years ago, and as Richard Posner said, "The government has a conflict of interest, because its paramount duty is to protect national security. If it could be trusted to hold national security and civil liberties concerns in perfect equipoise, there would be no need for judicial checks"(1). They are able to toss aside the Constitution, violating American's basic rights of free speech and press, and cannot be stopped or slowed. Should the government have uncontrolled power over wiretapping and surveillance? No. This power would detrimentally harm the American public, and cause grabs for power and control that would completely disrupt the balance of democracy, and throw the ideals of American into oblivion.

Bibliography

  1. Posner, Richard A. Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency New York: Oxford UP, 2006.
  2. Schneier, Bruce. "More on Greek Wiretapping." Bruce Schneier. 1 Mar. 2006. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/more_on_greek_w.html>
  3. Schneier, Bruce. "NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping." Bruce Schneier. 20 Dec. 2005. 21 Jan 2008. <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/nsa_and_bushs_i.html>
  4. Sorrells, Niels C. "German Tap Lessons." Foreign Policy. Sept. 2006. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/index.php>
  5. Stone, Geoffrey R. Perilous Times Free Speech in Wartime. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.
  6. Hepting Resources." EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.eff.org/nsa/hepting>
  7. Regan,Tom. "Canadian Sent to Syria Sues US Over Rendition Policy." The Christian Science Monitor. 11 Aug. 2005. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0811/dailyUpdate.html>
  8. Swire, Peter. "Legal FAQs on NSA Wiretaps." Domestic and Economy 26 Jan. 2006. Center for American Progress. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/01/b1389573.html>
  9. Schneier, Bruce. "Uncle Sam is Listening." Bruce Schneier. 20 Dec. 2005. 21 Jan. 2008 <http://www.schneier.com/essay-100.html>
The New York Times Washington Post has an amusing article on parents joining face book. I've been through a number of the situations that they mention there. Both of my daughters are my Facebook friends, and some of their friends have friended me as well. On the other hand, my younger daughter has refused to accept my "friend" request on MySpace. the problem with cross-generational "friending" isn't restricted to children complaining about their parents. There is also the problem of parents who would like to keep some of their activities somewhat private from their children. Until Facebook adds support for multiple separate personas, both parents and children have to be careful about what applications and other information they make available to whom.

Swiss Bank Julius Baer has dropped their suit against Wikileaks. Link. See my previous coverage here and here.

Presumably they realized that a) this wasn't going to be a quick "shut them up while we go public" suit, b) it wasn't going to work anyway and c) it was making matters much, much worse.

A good rule of thumb for people who have embarrassing information about themselves posted on the internet. Feel free to try and clear it up quietly. But don't make a public fuss. No matter how bad you think the situation is, it can always get worse. And if you make it a public issue, it will get worse.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Privacy category from March 2008.

Privacy: February 2008 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Subscribe via Reader

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

About Me

I'm the CEO/CTO of Somewhere, Inc., a company building a unified social networking layer that gives people the means to track their friends across multiple social networks.
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.