Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:33:12 -0500
From: leonf@perspicuity.net ("Leon")
Subject: FEAR: Fwd: 1984 is here -- again; The FBI's new powers
To: fear-list@mapinc.org, fear-talk@mapinc.org
Reply-To: fear-talk@mapinc.org
*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
On 6/12/2002 at 11:14 AM Brenda Grantland wrote:
>Subject:
> FW: Analysis of FBI's new surveillance powers, from CDT
> Date:
> Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:30:03 -0400
> From:
> "Singleton, Norman" <Norman.Singleton@mail.house.gov>
>
>
>
>
>
>Norman Kirk Singleton
>Legislative Director
>Congressman Ron Paul
>US House of Representatives
>202-225-2831 (ph)
>202-226-4871 (fx)
>
>"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty to the Party. There will be no
>
>love, except love of Big Brother... If you want a picture of the
>future,
>imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever."
>
> George Orwell, 1984
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan@well.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:08 PM
>To: politech@politechbot.com
>Subject: FC: Analysis of FBI's new surveillance powers, from CDT
>
>
>Previous Politech message:
>
>"Ashcroft on new investigation rules: FBI has been 'frustrated'"
>http://www.politechbot.com/p-03592.html
>
>---
>
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:22:32 -0400
>Subject: FBI Guidelines Changes: More Surveillance, Less Purpose
>From: Ari Schwartz <ari@cdt.org>
>
>The FBI has begun releasing information about its guidelines
>changes. Here is what we know so far:
>
>* The FBI is using the terrorism crisis as a cover for a range of
>changes, some of which have nothing to do with terrorism.
>
>* The online surfing provisions, for example, relate not only to
>terrorism cases, but to all other investigation - drugs, white collar
>crime, public corruption, and copyright infringement.
>
>* Other changes affect how the FBI conducts investigations under
>RICO, the racketeering and organized crime law, allowing the FBI to
>use the heavy weaponry of RICO (forfeiture, enhanced penalties)
>against crimes that are not committed for monetary gain.
>
>* The changes mean that the FBI, which has failed to manage the
>ocean of information it already collects, will be gathering yet more
>information in situations completely unconnected to any suspicion of
>criminal conduct, and will be continuing for longer periods of time
>investigations that are producing nothing.
>
>* The expanded surveillance and use of data mining could be written
>off as just a waste of money, but for two paramount problems: the
>changes are likely to make the FBI less efficient in preventing
>terrorism, by diverting resources down rat-holes of fruitless
>investigations; and the DOJ has proven its determination since
>September 11 to arrest people based on innocent coincidences and
>hold them in jail even after concluding that they were unrelated to any
>terrorism and in some cases (the material witnesses) had
>committed no legal violation at all.
>
>* The FBI was never prohibited from surfing the Internet or using
>commercial data mining services - the FBI has long been a major
>customer of many private information systems. But in the past, the
>search had to be related to some investigation. The threshold was
>very low - under the old guidelines, the FBI could maintain a
>preliminary inquiry for 90 days using data mining, undercover
>operations, photo surveillance, informants, etc, whenever it had
>"information or an allegation whose responsible handling required
>some further scrutiny." In fact, the FBIcould open preliminary
>inquiries solely for the purpose of data mining. But it had to be
>looking for some criminal conduct. The new changes allow the data
>mining technique - who has changed apartments three times in the
>past 2 years? who has been making a lot of international phone
>calls? - as the basis for generating the suspicion of criminal conduct
>in the first place.
>
>Specific Changes
>
>1. Topical Research. According to the explanatory memo, FBI
>agents could not conduct online searches under the term "anthrax,"
>even after the initial appearance of the anthrax letters That is absurd
>-
>there was an ongoing investigation. Anyhow, no privacy rights or civil
>liberties are implicated in searches - before or after the appearance
>of the anthrax letter - for words like "anthrax." This has little to do
>
>with
>searching for words like "anthrax." The question is whether general
>topical research includes searches for "Palestinian rights" or other
>terms with a political, ethnic or religious significance. If it does,
>then
>it seems a prelude to questioning people and even detaining them
>on the basis of their exercise of political freedoms.
>
>2. Online Surfing. This change is intended to allow FBI to search the
>Internet before they have any indication of criminal conduct. In other
>words, it authorizes fishing expeditions, plain and simple - FBI
>agents spending their days searching the Web to see what turns up -
>or more likely, FBI agents setting robots to search the web looking for
certain terms. But the guidelines do not seem to limit the type of
>searches. It is one thing to surf for information about bomb making
>or child porn, but it is another thing to search for information about
>Palestinian rights. This change is not limited to terrorist cases.
>
>5. Use of Commercial Data Mining Services. The FBI will now be
>using the services of the people who decide what catalogues to
>send you or what spam e-mail you will be interested in. The problem
>is, the direct marketers can oly call you during dinner time or mail
>you (or not mail you) another credit card offer based on that
>information - the FBI can arrest you. And since September 11 the FBI
>has in fact arrested and held people based on innocent activity.
>
>6. Preliminary Inquiries. I don't understand this point, about
>preliminary inquiries not serving as the basis for broader intelligence
>investigations. The old Guidelines clearly stated, "If, on the basis of
>
>information discovered in the course of a preliminary inquiry, an
>investigation is warranted, it may be conducted as a general crimes
>investigation, or a criminal intelligence investigation, or both." See
>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/generalcrimea.htm#general
>
>7. Criminal Intelligence Investigations. These changes include the
>change allowing investigations under RICO where there is no profit
>motive. Otherwise these changes reduce headquarters oversight,
>running the risk that worthless or improper investigations will be
>allowed to go on too long.
>
>8. Enhancing Preliminary Inquiries. Preliminary inquiries (PIs) allow
>the FBI to conduct investigations even when there is no reasonable
>indication of criminal activity. Under the old Guidelines for PIs, the
>FBI could use all techniques except three: mail covers, mail openings
>and wiretaps. This meant that the FBI could use informants, Internet
>searches, undercover operations, physical and photographic
>surveillance, data mining. Under the old guidelines, if 90 days of
>investigation turned up no indication of criminal activity, the
>investigation could be continued only with HQ approval. Under the
>changes, PIs can continue 1 year without HQ approval. This means
>that the FBI can conduct an investigation, using highly intrusive
>techniques for one year (and longer with HQ approval) even if the
>investigation is turning up no reasonable indication of criminal
>activity.
>
>9. Information Systems. One of the biggest changes is the last one
>on the DOJ list. It is called "Enhancing Information Analysis at FBI
>Headquarters," but it says that the FBI is authorized to "participate in
>..
>information systems ... [that] draw on and retain pertinent information
>from any source ... including ... publicly available information,
>whether
>obtained directly or through services or resources (whether nonprofit
>or commercial) that compile or analyze such information .... ." This
>means that the FBI can subscribe to any commercial profiling and
>data mining service, such as the one described on today's
>Washington Post business page. Some data mining services
>routinely profile people by race and religion. Another clause in the
>same new section permits acceptance and retention of information
>"voluntarily provided by private entities," which harkens back to the
>days of private intelligence gathering by right wing groups.
>
>Background
>
>One fact suggesting that there is more here than meets the eye is
>this: All of the changes relate to the FBI's domestic guidelines, not
>the international terrorism guidelines under which Osama bin Laden
>and Al Qaeda are investigated.
>
>The FBI is subject to two sets of guidelines, a classified set of
>guidelines for foreign intelligence and international terrorism
>investigations, and an unclassified set of guidelines on general
>crimes, racketeering and domestic terrorism. The old domestic
>guidelines are at
>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/generalcrimea.htm A heavily
>redacted copy of the international guidelines can be downloaded in
>PDF from http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/terrorismintel2.pdf
>
>The distinction between foreign and domestic has nothing to do with
>where the investigation is conducted - both sets of guidelines relate
>to investigations in the United States. Rather the difference between
>the two sets of guidelines has to do with the nature of the
>organization being investigated. The foreign guidelines govern
>investigations inside the United States of foreign powers and
>international terrorism organizations (such as al Qaeda or Hamas),
>groups that originate abroad but carry out activities in the US. The
>domestic guidelines govern investigations of organized crime and of
>terrorist groups that operate in the US and originate in the US - white
>supremacists, animal rights activists, what remains of the Weather
>Underground.
>
>In some ways, the foreign intelligence and international terrorism
>guidelines have always given the FBI more latitude than the domestic
>guidelines. In particular, they allow investigations to be conducted
>where there is absolutelyno suspicion of criminal activity -
>investigations can be opened merely on the basis of suspicion that a
>person is affiliated with an international terrorist group, even if
>there
>is no evidence that the person is doing anything illegal. The irony is
>that the FBI's failed investigations of the Osama bin Laden group and
>of Islamic fundamentalists in general were conducted under those
>looser guidelines, indicating that the problem was not the limits
>imposed by the guidelines.
>
>For more information, contact Jim Dempsey , CDT Deputy Director,
>jdempsey@cdt.org, (202) 637-9800 x 112.
>
>
>
>
>
*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest