Thursday, June 30
Religious Morality vs. Civil Law
Religious Conflicts over Neutral, Civil Laws -
Why Do Religious Believers Put Religious Morality Over Civil Law?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
[REPRINT]
When, if ever, should personal religious morality take precedence over neutral, public laws and standards of justice? In a civil, secular society the answer should probably be "never," but not all religious believers agree with this. One issue which underlies so many religious conflicts, not to mention religious extremism, is the conviction held by many religious believers that their religious morality, supposedly from their god, should take precedence when they believe the law has failed.
The underlying principle behind this is the belief that all proper or just morality, law, standards of conduct, ethics, and authority ultimately derives from God. When civil authorities fail to execute what one believes to be the wishes or standards of God, then those civil authorities have failed to live up to the standards which justify their existence. At this point the religious believer is justified in ignoring them and taking God's wishes into their own hands. There is no such thing as a justified civil authority independent of God and thus no valid civil laws which can excuse godless, immoral behavior.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this sort of thinking comes from Iran where six members of a state militia were found innocent of murder by the Iranian Supreme Court because the six human beings they brutally killed were all regarded by the killers as "morally corrupt."
No one denied that the killings happened; instead the killings were justified in a manner analogous to how one can justify killing someone in self-defense. Rather than claiming that their lives were in danger, however, the killers claimed that they had the authority under Islamic law to kill people who had not been properly punished by the state for grossly immoral behavior. All of the victims suffered greatly by being stoned or drowned, and in one case an engaged couple was killed simply because they were walking together in public.
Three lower courts had originally upheld the men's convictions, finding that a belief that someone is "morally corrupt" is insufficient grounds to justify killing a human being. The Iranian Supreme Court disagreed with the other courts and agreed with senior clerics who have argued that Muslims have a duty to enforce the moral standards handed down by God. Even Mohammad Sadegh Al-e-Eshagh, a Supreme Court judge who didn't take part in the case and who says that killings done without a court order should be punished, was willing to agree that certain moral "offenses" can be justifiably punished by the people — offenses like adultery and insulting Muhammad.
In the final analysis, this ruling means that anyone can get away with murder by simply claiming that the victim was morally corrupt. In Iran, personal religious morality has been given precedence over neutral civil laws and standards of conduct. Under civil laws, everyone is supposed to be judged by the same neutral standards; now, everyone can be judged by the personal standards of random strangers — standards based on their own personal interpretation of their private religious beliefs.
Although the situation in Iran is extreme, it is in principle not too far different from the beliefs of many other religious believers around the world. This is, for example, the underlying principle behind attempts by Americans in various professions to avoid being held to the same standards and do the same job that others in the profession have to do. Rather than abide by neutral laws and standards of professional conduct, individual pharmacists want the authority to decide for themselves — based on their personal interpretation of private religious morality — which medications they will and will not dispense. Cab drivers want to do the same with respect to who they will and will not transport in their cabs.
This is an issue which is usually discussed in the context of church/state separation, but it's one which cuts right to the heart of whether church and state should even be separated. What it comes down to is whether civil society will be governed by neutral, secular laws created by the people based upon their own determination of what is and is not right, or will society be governed by the interpretations of allegedly divine revelations by ecclesiastical leaders — or even worse, by the personal interpretations by every religious individual acting on their own?
This isn't simply a question of accommodation, which involves simply making it easier for religious individuals to follow their religion and conscience. You accommodate a person's religious needs by adapting procedures to work around those needs, but when you exempt them from having to do the very basic requirements of a job you go beyond mere accommodation. At this point, you enter the same realm which the Iranian Supreme Court has already deeply penetrated: you abandon neutral, secular standards of conduct applicable to everyone in favor of personal religious standards adopted and interpreted by each individual at will.
This is incompatible with a multi-faith, multicultural, civil society. Such a society requires secular standards that apply equally to all people in all situations — that's what it means to be a nation of laws rather than of men. The rule of law and justice depends upon publicly disclosed, publicly debated, and publicly decided standards rather than the arbitrary whims, beliefs, or faiths of individuals who happen to occupy positions of power and authority. We should expect doctors, pharmacists, cab drivers, and other licensed professionals to treat us according to independent, public standards — not arbitrary, personal religious standards. We should expect the state to deliver justice in a neutral, secular manner — not protect those who seek to enforce a private vision of godly conduct on us.
Why Do Religious Believers Put Religious Morality Over Civil Law?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
[REPRINT]
When, if ever, should personal religious morality take precedence over neutral, public laws and standards of justice? In a civil, secular society the answer should probably be "never," but not all religious believers agree with this. One issue which underlies so many religious conflicts, not to mention religious extremism, is the conviction held by many religious believers that their religious morality, supposedly from their god, should take precedence when they believe the law has failed.
The underlying principle behind this is the belief that all proper or just morality, law, standards of conduct, ethics, and authority ultimately derives from God. When civil authorities fail to execute what one believes to be the wishes or standards of God, then those civil authorities have failed to live up to the standards which justify their existence. At this point the religious believer is justified in ignoring them and taking God's wishes into their own hands. There is no such thing as a justified civil authority independent of God and thus no valid civil laws which can excuse godless, immoral behavior.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this sort of thinking comes from Iran where six members of a state militia were found innocent of murder by the Iranian Supreme Court because the six human beings they brutally killed were all regarded by the killers as "morally corrupt."
No one denied that the killings happened; instead the killings were justified in a manner analogous to how one can justify killing someone in self-defense. Rather than claiming that their lives were in danger, however, the killers claimed that they had the authority under Islamic law to kill people who had not been properly punished by the state for grossly immoral behavior. All of the victims suffered greatly by being stoned or drowned, and in one case an engaged couple was killed simply because they were walking together in public.
Three lower courts had originally upheld the men's convictions, finding that a belief that someone is "morally corrupt" is insufficient grounds to justify killing a human being. The Iranian Supreme Court disagreed with the other courts and agreed with senior clerics who have argued that Muslims have a duty to enforce the moral standards handed down by God. Even Mohammad Sadegh Al-e-Eshagh, a Supreme Court judge who didn't take part in the case and who says that killings done without a court order should be punished, was willing to agree that certain moral "offenses" can be justifiably punished by the people — offenses like adultery and insulting Muhammad.
In the final analysis, this ruling means that anyone can get away with murder by simply claiming that the victim was morally corrupt. In Iran, personal religious morality has been given precedence over neutral civil laws and standards of conduct. Under civil laws, everyone is supposed to be judged by the same neutral standards; now, everyone can be judged by the personal standards of random strangers — standards based on their own personal interpretation of their private religious beliefs.
Although the situation in Iran is extreme, it is in principle not too far different from the beliefs of many other religious believers around the world. This is, for example, the underlying principle behind attempts by Americans in various professions to avoid being held to the same standards and do the same job that others in the profession have to do. Rather than abide by neutral laws and standards of professional conduct, individual pharmacists want the authority to decide for themselves — based on their personal interpretation of private religious morality — which medications they will and will not dispense. Cab drivers want to do the same with respect to who they will and will not transport in their cabs.
This is an issue which is usually discussed in the context of church/state separation, but it's one which cuts right to the heart of whether church and state should even be separated. What it comes down to is whether civil society will be governed by neutral, secular laws created by the people based upon their own determination of what is and is not right, or will society be governed by the interpretations of allegedly divine revelations by ecclesiastical leaders — or even worse, by the personal interpretations by every religious individual acting on their own?
This isn't simply a question of accommodation, which involves simply making it easier for religious individuals to follow their religion and conscience. You accommodate a person's religious needs by adapting procedures to work around those needs, but when you exempt them from having to do the very basic requirements of a job you go beyond mere accommodation. At this point, you enter the same realm which the Iranian Supreme Court has already deeply penetrated: you abandon neutral, secular standards of conduct applicable to everyone in favor of personal religious standards adopted and interpreted by each individual at will.
This is incompatible with a multi-faith, multicultural, civil society. Such a society requires secular standards that apply equally to all people in all situations — that's what it means to be a nation of laws rather than of men. The rule of law and justice depends upon publicly disclosed, publicly debated, and publicly decided standards rather than the arbitrary whims, beliefs, or faiths of individuals who happen to occupy positions of power and authority. We should expect doctors, pharmacists, cab drivers, and other licensed professionals to treat us according to independent, public standards — not arbitrary, personal religious standards. We should expect the state to deliver justice in a neutral, secular manner — not protect those who seek to enforce a private vision of godly conduct on us.
I Am a Dissident
By Timothy V. Gatto
Countercurrents.org
[REPRINT]
I am a dissident. This term allows my government to ignore my opinions and also enables the rest of America to discount any or all of my opinions. I am also a “conspiracy theorist”, because I believe that more than one person in my government are colluding together in order to dupe the American people to believe things that are not true. Therefore, I am of no consequence. Anything I say can be attributed to the “lunatic fringe”. I have been framed, that is, I have been relegated to the sidelines of any debate of consequence. I have been neatly packaged and categorized so that my opinions have no relevance.
I should be outraged, but the truth is such, that I consider my labeling to be a badge of honor. To be considered otherwise would brand me as a participant in what I consider to be the ultimate betrayal of everything good that this nation has ever stood for.
Let me be frank. I’m not saying for a moment that America was ever a “shining light of democracy” or a nation that was totally pure in deed and actions. Still, at one time, it was the world’s best chance since ancient Athens to create something noble. This nation was once an experiment to build a nation that was “of the people, and for the people”.
Sure, there were those that never subscribed to that quaint notion. In fact, many of the people entrusted to continue this experiment in representative government were in fact, some of the most duplicitous individuals in our nation’s history, but it never seemed to matter because eventually, the nation would right itself and follow the path laid out for us by those that initiated this great experiment. Just as in all of mankind’s many endeavors, nothing about this nation has ever been perfect because perfection doesn’t exist, but still, it was a valiant effort.
Everything in the physical world has a beginning and an end. The more we cherish something, the longer we try to hold on to it. When we lose something we hold especially dear, it is generally recognized that we go through different stages of grief. Probably the most well-known of these might be from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' book, "On Death and Dying." In it, she identified five stages that a dying patient experiences when informed of their terminal prognosis.
The stages Kubler-Ross identified are:
The death of an idea or the death of an ideal can be as hard to deal with as our own death or the death of a loved one. I believe that we are witnessing the death of both; an idea and an ideal. I believe that we are watching the death of America, and the death of what she once enshrined in the values of the Constitution and the values of her people. The nation that was once a beacon of light in a world that at times could be cruel and dark for people for people living in places where despair was a lifetime event came here to break out of the circumstances they were born into. In America people could reinvent themselves, and in a country of immigrants, they had the closest thing to an even break that they could ever hope to have anywhere else.
This nation came into being because of ideas that people developed after living under a British monarchy that seemed to have no regard for their rights. The people who founded this nation also believed in ideals that they fought over with each other tooth and nail, for many long months, virtual prisoners in a house that was shuttered during the hottest part of the summer. Some of these very same men died, and some lost everything they had acquired in their lives, in order that they be given the chance to live their ideas and ideals. No people had ever been as bold as those that put everything they had, and everything they were, on the line against the superpower of the era. This wasn’t just a political revolution; it was a revolution of ideas. That was “American exceptionalism”.
Today we are bombarded with the term “American exceptionalism”. The sad part of this is that most of the people that use the term have no idea of what it means. When they say America is exceptional, they usually refer to the fact that our nation is the world’s lone superpower. They pride themselves in the fact that we went from a group of colonies to a superpower that actually rescued its mother country from fascism. They point to our inventiveness and our power… always our power. That isn’t American exceptionalism, its nationalism.
False patriotism and rampant nationalism have brought this once great nation to its knees. I find it hard to comprehend the fact that so many Americans willingly gave up their lives in order to insure that American ideals would prevail. Today we see the United States in the theater of war, not to fight for ideals, but to fight for resources. We no longer stand against torture, but practice it. We give away our liberties, the same liberties that so many Americans died for, in order to have “security” from those that could possibly do us harm. They are called “Terrorists”, not long ago they were called “Communists”. Those that fight against the American military are called “insurgents”. An entire religion has been deemed to be our enemy.
Congress has surrendered its authority by giving the executive branch the power to make war. It is no longer a co-equal member of government. We can compare the Senate to the Senate of Rome after their republic failed. Our president can make war whenever and wherever he wishes. We have become a nation that thrives on war. A nation who’s largest economic sector is the military industrial complex. A situation Eisenhower warned us about in his last speech to the nation.
America, once an idea that spawned into a nation, is no more. The ideals that were voiced during its conception are no longer the ideals of the two corporate controlled political parties that run this nation. This nation now serves the interests of the wealthiest of Americans as seen in the Wall Street bailout where casino economics brought this country to its knees and the American taxpayer was made to foot the bill to pay for their criminal escapades. Yet, not one of the Wall Street bankers has been charged with any crime! Now our government is using the nation’s debt (that doubled due to the bail-outs) to call for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, two programs that Americans have paid into all of their working lives. The establishment that runs this country wants to claim for itself all of the wealth and leave the average American citizen with nothing. It’s not enough for them to have most of the wealth; they want all of the wealth.
The demise of America is taking place in front of our eyes. The government cries poverty when any measures are introduced in Congress that would fix our infrastructure or rebuild our industrial base or even stop the threat of global warming. These same people however always have the wherewithal to support spending on the military, even though we spend over half the military spending of the entire planet!
The legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren is in all respects, a broken nation. We have taken the richest nation on Earth and plundered it. The people that we entrusted to safeguard our republic have used that trust to line their pockets. Insatiable greed has left this nation so far in debt that we may never see our way out of it. Our civil liberties have been savaged by this American security-state we now live under. The president has the authority to assassinate anyone, anywhere, including American citizens! We have the burden of the Patriot Act that allows the government to search our homes and property without a warrant. We have the Military Commissions Act that allows the government to declare you a “terrorist” and strips you of your legal rights.
We have become a nation that sees the people in Guantanamo as so dangerous that we cannot give them a trial for their crimes, even though we tried the remaining leaders of the Third Reich! They must be dangerous indeed!
Americans that believed that Barack Obama would bring us change were deluded. Unless the majority of Americans stand up against these two corporate controlled political parties, we can only look to many more years of war and seeing our remaining civil liberties stripped away.
America was an idea and an ideal. The ideal of America is dead and buried, but the idea of America can live on. They can kill an ideal, but they can’t kill an idea. The idea of America is still carried by those who remember what we originally set out to do, to create a nation “By the people and for the people”. Let us hope that idea never dies.
Countercurrents.org
[REPRINT]
I am a dissident. This term allows my government to ignore my opinions and also enables the rest of America to discount any or all of my opinions. I am also a “conspiracy theorist”, because I believe that more than one person in my government are colluding together in order to dupe the American people to believe things that are not true. Therefore, I am of no consequence. Anything I say can be attributed to the “lunatic fringe”. I have been framed, that is, I have been relegated to the sidelines of any debate of consequence. I have been neatly packaged and categorized so that my opinions have no relevance.
I should be outraged, but the truth is such, that I consider my labeling to be a badge of honor. To be considered otherwise would brand me as a participant in what I consider to be the ultimate betrayal of everything good that this nation has ever stood for.
Let me be frank. I’m not saying for a moment that America was ever a “shining light of democracy” or a nation that was totally pure in deed and actions. Still, at one time, it was the world’s best chance since ancient Athens to create something noble. This nation was once an experiment to build a nation that was “of the people, and for the people”.
Sure, there were those that never subscribed to that quaint notion. In fact, many of the people entrusted to continue this experiment in representative government were in fact, some of the most duplicitous individuals in our nation’s history, but it never seemed to matter because eventually, the nation would right itself and follow the path laid out for us by those that initiated this great experiment. Just as in all of mankind’s many endeavors, nothing about this nation has ever been perfect because perfection doesn’t exist, but still, it was a valiant effort.
Everything in the physical world has a beginning and an end. The more we cherish something, the longer we try to hold on to it. When we lose something we hold especially dear, it is generally recognized that we go through different stages of grief. Probably the most well-known of these might be from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' book, "On Death and Dying." In it, she identified five stages that a dying patient experiences when informed of their terminal prognosis.
The stages Kubler-Ross identified are:
* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)
The death of an idea or the death of an ideal can be as hard to deal with as our own death or the death of a loved one. I believe that we are witnessing the death of both; an idea and an ideal. I believe that we are watching the death of America, and the death of what she once enshrined in the values of the Constitution and the values of her people. The nation that was once a beacon of light in a world that at times could be cruel and dark for people for people living in places where despair was a lifetime event came here to break out of the circumstances they were born into. In America people could reinvent themselves, and in a country of immigrants, they had the closest thing to an even break that they could ever hope to have anywhere else.
This nation came into being because of ideas that people developed after living under a British monarchy that seemed to have no regard for their rights. The people who founded this nation also believed in ideals that they fought over with each other tooth and nail, for many long months, virtual prisoners in a house that was shuttered during the hottest part of the summer. Some of these very same men died, and some lost everything they had acquired in their lives, in order that they be given the chance to live their ideas and ideals. No people had ever been as bold as those that put everything they had, and everything they were, on the line against the superpower of the era. This wasn’t just a political revolution; it was a revolution of ideas. That was “American exceptionalism”.
Today we are bombarded with the term “American exceptionalism”. The sad part of this is that most of the people that use the term have no idea of what it means. When they say America is exceptional, they usually refer to the fact that our nation is the world’s lone superpower. They pride themselves in the fact that we went from a group of colonies to a superpower that actually rescued its mother country from fascism. They point to our inventiveness and our power… always our power. That isn’t American exceptionalism, its nationalism.
False patriotism and rampant nationalism have brought this once great nation to its knees. I find it hard to comprehend the fact that so many Americans willingly gave up their lives in order to insure that American ideals would prevail. Today we see the United States in the theater of war, not to fight for ideals, but to fight for resources. We no longer stand against torture, but practice it. We give away our liberties, the same liberties that so many Americans died for, in order to have “security” from those that could possibly do us harm. They are called “Terrorists”, not long ago they were called “Communists”. Those that fight against the American military are called “insurgents”. An entire religion has been deemed to be our enemy.
Congress has surrendered its authority by giving the executive branch the power to make war. It is no longer a co-equal member of government. We can compare the Senate to the Senate of Rome after their republic failed. Our president can make war whenever and wherever he wishes. We have become a nation that thrives on war. A nation who’s largest economic sector is the military industrial complex. A situation Eisenhower warned us about in his last speech to the nation.
America, once an idea that spawned into a nation, is no more. The ideals that were voiced during its conception are no longer the ideals of the two corporate controlled political parties that run this nation. This nation now serves the interests of the wealthiest of Americans as seen in the Wall Street bailout where casino economics brought this country to its knees and the American taxpayer was made to foot the bill to pay for their criminal escapades. Yet, not one of the Wall Street bankers has been charged with any crime! Now our government is using the nation’s debt (that doubled due to the bail-outs) to call for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, two programs that Americans have paid into all of their working lives. The establishment that runs this country wants to claim for itself all of the wealth and leave the average American citizen with nothing. It’s not enough for them to have most of the wealth; they want all of the wealth.
The demise of America is taking place in front of our eyes. The government cries poverty when any measures are introduced in Congress that would fix our infrastructure or rebuild our industrial base or even stop the threat of global warming. These same people however always have the wherewithal to support spending on the military, even though we spend over half the military spending of the entire planet!
The legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren is in all respects, a broken nation. We have taken the richest nation on Earth and plundered it. The people that we entrusted to safeguard our republic have used that trust to line their pockets. Insatiable greed has left this nation so far in debt that we may never see our way out of it. Our civil liberties have been savaged by this American security-state we now live under. The president has the authority to assassinate anyone, anywhere, including American citizens! We have the burden of the Patriot Act that allows the government to search our homes and property without a warrant. We have the Military Commissions Act that allows the government to declare you a “terrorist” and strips you of your legal rights.
We have become a nation that sees the people in Guantanamo as so dangerous that we cannot give them a trial for their crimes, even though we tried the remaining leaders of the Third Reich! They must be dangerous indeed!
Americans that believed that Barack Obama would bring us change were deluded. Unless the majority of Americans stand up against these two corporate controlled political parties, we can only look to many more years of war and seeing our remaining civil liberties stripped away.
America was an idea and an ideal. The ideal of America is dead and buried, but the idea of America can live on. They can kill an ideal, but they can’t kill an idea. The idea of America is still carried by those who remember what we originally set out to do, to create a nation “By the people and for the people”. Let us hope that idea never dies.
Timothy V. Gatto is an American blogger. He can be reached at timgatto@hotmail.com
TSA Adult Diaper Check
Agency stands by decision to force Jean Weber’s 95-year-old, cancer-stricken mother to remove her underwear.Agency says its officers were following procedure when they forced an elderly, cancer-stricken woman to remove her underwear.
By Stephen Spencer Davis | [REPRINT]
In the face of a potential public relations storm, the U.S. government is defending a decision by airport security officials to force a 95-year-old woman with leukemia to remove her adult diaper for a pat-down.
“We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure,” the Transportation Security Administration said in a statement Sunday.
The incident in question occurred on June 18 at Northwest Florida Regional Airport, and quickly gained media attention after the woman’s daughter, Jean Weber, went public with her complaint.
In an interview with CNN, Weber said that the incident occurred when her mother was going through airport security and a TSA agent discovered something “suspicious” on her leg. The officer then took her mother to a private, glassed-in area for further screening. According to Weber, the agent told her that her mother’s diaper was “wet and it was firm, and they couldn’t check it thoroughly.” The women then left to find a bathroom to take off the diaper, as the TSA officer had requested.
Weber said she began to cry during the ordeal—prompting her own pat down—but that her mother remained “very calm” and wasn’t bothered by the fact that she had to continue her journey without underwear.
Weber, who has filed a complaint with TSA, said that she understands the agents were just doing their job but that the procedure needs to be changed to spare others the embarrassment and discomfort her mother went through.
"If this is your procedure—which I do understand—I also feel that your procedure needs to be changed," she said.
The administration heightened airport security last year, including full-body scans and pat-downs to prevent passengers from carrying explosives onto planes. The intention was to prevent attacks similar to the so-called underwear bomber’s failed 2009 attempt. But the agency's strict inspection policies have repeatedly drawn complaints from passengers who say that the procedures can go too far.
The TSA estimates that only 3 percent of passengers are subjected to pat-downs, and that the inspections occur only after someone has triggered a metal detector or declined a full-body scan.
Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images.
Sunday, June 26
Vision: How Hacker Activists Are Risking Jail for Everyone's Right to Internet Freedom | | AlterNet
AlterNetBy Julianne Escobedo Shepherd
[REPRINT]
Since WikiLeaks, authorities have been more aggressive about arresting citizen cyber activists. Yet new actions by the biggest "hacktivists" show they're willing to risk it.
Last week, British authorities arrested an alleged member of the self-proclaimed “hacktivist” collective LulzSec, accusing the 19-year-old of breaking into websites belonging to the US Senate and the CIA. Ryan Cleary, allegedly outed by “snitches,” was arrested in Essex in a joint raid with the FBI, on the same day LulzSec claimed in a blog post it had obtained the database of the entire British census. “It’s a very significant arrest,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson told the Independent. “The challenges around cyber crime are extraordinarily significant and deeply worrying.”
For many in mainstream culture, the concept of hacking may still invoke quaint ‘90s images of Neil Stephenson books, bad Billy Idol phases and career-best Angelina Jolie movies. But since WikiLeaks’ pro-information dominance, a spate of high-profile arrests has propelled the hacker concept back into mass consciousness, proving that not only are web “hacktivists” a hugely influential, powerful bunch, but that the powers that be are taking them ever more seriously. Last month, the US government proved how grave an offense they perceive cyber sabotage to be; in May, the Pentagon ruled that any country caught trying to hack into state systems would be considered an act of war. Matthew Broderick Pong tricks, this ain’t.
Though their methods have changed since their emergence and cultural dominance -- fanzines have been replaced with 4chan, targets range from Tumblr to State websites -- clearly hacktivists remain some of the most important and powerful subversives in the global information society. It’s ironic, too, that a hacker is at the center of one of the biggest news stories in the world: Adrian Lamo, who was cuffed in 2004 for hacking into the websites of Yahoo and Microsoft, is now best known as the man who identified -- or, as many put it, snitched on -- alleged Wikileaker Bradley Manning.
But with their power comes righteousness. While some hackers' actions are just bent on mischief -- Josh Holly, for instance, the 19-year-old who breached teen queen Miley Cyrus' email and leaked her suggestive photos -- the two largest groups, LulzSec and Anonymous, are increasingly dedicated to First Amendment ideals -- freedom of information and the right of the people to know what their government is doing in their name. As a whole, their tactics might be a little more radical than your average protester engaging in street actions. But they're also extremely effective. This week, the two banded their amorphous groups together to declare "war" on governments and banks everywhere, stating in a manifesto, “Whether you're sailing with us or against us, whether you hold past grudges or a burning desire to sink our lone ship, we invite you to join the rebellion. Together we can defend ourselves so that our privacy is not overrun by profiteering gluttons. Your hat can be white, gray or black, your skin and race are not important. If you're aware of the corruption, expose it now, in the name of Anti-Security.” (There is, thank goodness, already an awesome, LulzSec-approved, Anti-Sec theme song, by the hacker/rapper YTCracker.)
And the actions have already started. Yesterday, LulzSec unleashed a Wikileaks-style data-dump protesting Arizona for being what they called a "racial-profiling, anti-immigrant police state." Calling the action "Chinga La Migra" ("Fuck the Border Police"), they released "private intelligence bulletins, training manuals, personal email correspondence, names, phone numbers, addresses and passwords belonging to Arizona law enforcement." Gizmodo, the leading technology website, offered this analysis: "This is the first time LulzSec's purported to release personal information of government agents, rather than just disrupting their websites (see: CIA, US Senate). This is a powerful move. Home addresses are home addresses—about as personal as personal data gets."
While LulzSec's actions raise some legal issues as to how the information was attained, the more compelling -- and inspiring -- issue is the moral one: addresses are one thing, but what if the dump reveals information that shows the AZ police force was being overtly racist (on government computers!) or engaging in illegal behavior? Isn't this the kind of thing the public has a right to know about? (And, in fact, they did discover that the AZ police force was being overtly racist, illegal and unethical -- including hiring contracted Marines to go "migrant hunting" -- in case that is somehow surprising to you.) In a way, LulzSec is transforming itself into a self-standing whistleblower, with an explicitly political manifesto: "Every week we plan on releasing more classified documents and embarassing [sic] personal details of military and law enforcement in an effort not just to reveal their racist and corrupt nature but to purposefully sabotage their efforts to terrorize communities fighting an unjust 'war on drugs.'" Think what you want about their tactics -- the fact is, LulzSec is on our side.
And in certain ways, these groups were been inspired and/or liberated by the global prominence (and power) of Wikileaks. Think back to December, when Anonymous launched "Operation Payback," in which they crippled credit card companies and banks like Visa and Mastercard to punish them for blocking payments to the information site. The latter two sites were shuttered for the better part of a day, and a spokesperson for the group told Agence France Presse they were targeting those with an "anti-WikiLeaks agenda." Not long after, Dutch authorities fingered two Dutch teenagers for the hack -- 19-year-old Martijn Gonlag, and another 16-year-old, who allegedly confessed. In an interview with TechEye, Gonlag was calm but resolute, though he publicly renounced his hacker tactics (as many do... publicly). "While I want to keep working for the things I believe in, I will of course do it now, as always, in legal ways.” he said.
In January, a month after the Dutch teens were arrested for the WikiLeaks money hacks, five people -- ranging in age from 15 to 26 -- were detained in the UK for allegedly having a hand in it as well. Then, on January 27, the FBI announced they were conducting raids stateside, producing over 40 search warrants across the country. In response, Loz Kaye, leader of Pirate Party UK, condemned the arrests, and pointed out the hacks were a form of citizen’s resistance. "These arrests, and comments by ACPO threatening 'more extreme tactics' to deal with hacktivists represent a worrying ratcheting up of confrontation. Many in the online community frankly feel under siege. It is time for engagement from mainstream politicians, or otherwise radicalization can only increase."
The Pirate Party is another groundbreaking group that non-web-entrenched progressives should familiarize themselves with; they run on a specific platform of "represent[ing] the changes demanded by technology that governments and industries are resisting with all their might." And for them, perhaps said radicalization comes in the form of hacking masterclasses for senior citizens, held last month in order to teach the elderly how to obtain euthanasia assistance blocked by government filters. Earlier this month, they released a statement and action against the UK's Digital Economy Act, which would block specific websites and "threat[en] freedom of expression, would harm innocent and vulnerable people, and are wholly disproportionate measures."
This month has been a particularly banner one for the crackdown on hackers, yet most news outlets are focusing on their arrests rather than the reasons for their actions. For instance, on June 10, three alleged members of Anonymous were arrested in different Spanish cities for attacking government websites in Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Chile, Colombia and New Zealand. The Spanish government called the hackers a “threat to national security.” Yet if you look at a list of the countries attacked, you note that each has enforced forms of internet censorship, keeping its citizens from information that could be vital to their liberation. It's hard to reconcile the hypocrisy that our own president thinks he can wage physical war in Libya without Congressional approval, yet a few hackers -- likely very young -- can't get away with cyber crackdowns that aren't killing anyone. The whole world praised Facebook for its role in disseminating information about the Egyptian uprising.... yet those protesting the government censorship of such sites are being arrested?
It seems quite backwards -- and Anonymous seems to think so, too. In retaliation, the group kicked down the website of the Spanish police, taking credit for pulling it offline via Blogspot. The BBC:
In its statement, Anonymous said the DDoS attack was a "direct response to the Friday arrests of three individuals alleged to be associated with acts of cyber civil disobedience attributed to Anonymous."
The group said DDoS attacks were a legitimate form of peaceful protest. Some of its members are thought to have carried out similar attacks on Turkish government websites to protest against net censorship.
Turkey will soon impose a new filter on the internet that some say will be used to illegally monitor the web activities of citizens. In protest, members of Anonymous took down various government websites in the country (on June 13, some 32 people were arrested for their alleged involvement).
Earlier this month, over 50,000 people in Istanbul took to the streets to peacefully protest the Turkish government's web censorship. Anonymous' retort was, simply, an act of cyber solidarity, waged in the very space that would be affected by the government's actions. In ideology, there is little difference between the two forms of protest... it's just that one is deemed legal (in some places), and one is not.
Last week, the BBC interviewed Peter Sommer, the man who helped forge hacking when he wrote The Hacker's Handbook in the 1980s. "There has always been a streak within hackerdom of ideology mixed with technology," he said:
The hacker, explains Mr Sommer, is distinct from the cyber-criminal, whose motivations are generally larceny and whose relationship with technology is akin to the housebreaker's relationship to the jemmy - it is a tool of the trade.
Hackers are interested in the mechanism of attack as much as they are in the target.
"One strong element in hacking is seeing how things work. Here is a technology, can I make it do something else?" says Mr Sommer.
That love of technological innovation, and the internet in particular, gives rise to a philosophy.
And the philosophy is increasingly in action. Just this week, Anonymous reacted to Malaysia's censorship of WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay by taking down government sites. On June 20, various websites belonging to the city of Orlando, Florida, were pulled down to protest the arrests of members of Food Not Bombs, who were distributing food to the homeless in a city park (which, apparently, violated city ordinances).
While some hackers may simply be intent on causing mischief or flexing their programming chops, it's plain to see that these actions are not for nothing... they're forms of protest that we can recognize as parallel to our rallies, petitions and actions. Meanwhile, the media usually mis-assesses the situation when it paints hacktivists as simply online troublemakers -- a concept rooted in the group's more anarchic roots in the early '00s, as characterized by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. "This really is a techno arms race," Pure Hacker security chief Robert McAdam told the Australia Herald-Sun. "Except this time instead of graduating from throwing rocks to bullets and bombs, technology is the weapon and it's growing exponentially." He was sort of right -- while there’s a radical resistance at work, comparing web sabotage to the nuclear arms race is a little extreme.
But in December, Anonymous' Coldblood agreed. In an interview with the BBC, he said, "I see this as becoming a war. Not a conventional war. This is a war of data. We are trying to keep the internet open and free for everyone, just as the internet has been and always was. But in recent months and years we have seen governments, the European Union trying to creep in and limit the freedom we have on the internet."
As First Base Technologies' Peter Wood put it to the BBC on June 22, "I can't condone anyone breaking the law... but I do understand where they are coming from." Another way to look at it: "hacktivism" is the future of peaceful protest; these brave, super-smart cyber activists are defending all of our right to expression, defending our freedom on the battleground of now and the future. As more and more governments want to clamp down on the way we can use the internet, the best of the hacktivists are working on keeping it free.
The Arab Revolutions: An End to Dogma
openDemocracy
by Hazem Saghieh
[REPRINT]
The radical, pro-Iranian pro-Syrian camp in the middle east is extremely confused nowadays. The Arab revolutions which at first triggered its enthusiasm and energy have turned out to be very different from what it expected and hoped for.
The Tunisian revolution did not release any “anti-imperialist” sentiment; the Egyptian revolution did not burn American flags in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, nor annul the 1978 treaty with Israel. The whole notion that the Tunisians and Egyptians were imitating the Khomeini revolutionary model, a notion promoted by the Iranian leaders, was proven wrong.
Moreover, the radical prophecy that the west and its influence are going to shrink in the region was also proved wrong. The international intervention in Libya widened the presence of the west and its influence in the Arab world. What is more annoying to the radical camp is that this intervention is welcomed by most Libyans and acceptable to most of the Arabs.
Syria also contradicted them. Bashar al-Assad told the Wall Street Journal that his country is stable because his regime is “very closely linked to the beliefs of the people”. A few weeks later, the uprising started in Syria. Damascus’s “steadfastness” and “confrontational policy” - which led it to support the Lebanese group Hizbollah, the Palestinian group Hamas and the Iraqi terrorists who call themselves the “Iraqi resistance” - did not help much.
Syria’s upheaval might be the most important development of all: not just because of its central location and the influence it can exert on Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also because Syria is the bridge through which Iranian influence can reach the Arab middle east.
The demonstrators in the Arab streets did not chant revolutionary slogans; they did not ask for arms or call for “resistance”. They chanted instead: “peaceful, peaceful”. The mood of young Arab people differed entirely from those of previous decades. This might change in the future; but for the moment it is safe to say that peacefulness has the upper hand
The al-Jazeera TV station, seen as the voice of Arab radicals, changed course. Those who believed its revolutionary rhetoric discovered the bitter fact: al-Jazeera had used that rhetoric as an instrument of the Qatari regime and its ambitions. Qatar now is part of the international intervention in Libya; it is part of the conservative and repressive Gulf policy toward Bahrain. The Qatari emir went to the United States to thank President Obama for “supporting democracy in the Arab world”. When Qatar changed, al-Jazeera had to change. This is manifested in its elaborate coverage of the Syrian uprising.
In this context, two further aspects of the Arab revolutions are relevant. First, Osama bin Laden's death came as a mere detail. The uprisings killed Bin Laden politically before he died at the Americans’ hands. Second, Israel has the capacity greatly to help in accelerating the positive transition and curbing radical tendencies in the Arab world. At present, it is doing the contrary under Benjamin Netanyahu and the ultra-right chauvinist coalition he leads.
But the cumulative outcome of these changes is a devastating loss for the radical camp. In their totality, they challenge the dogmas that have long poisoned Arab political culture. It is time for the dogmas to be discarded, and for real understanding and self-awareness to take their place.
by Hazem Saghieh
[REPRINT]
The popular uprisings in the Arab world are a great disaster for a radical camp led by Syria-Iran and long indulged by media such as al-Jazeera. A great opportunity follows, says Hazem Saghieh.
The radical, pro-Iranian pro-Syrian camp in the middle east is extremely confused nowadays. The Arab revolutions which at first triggered its enthusiasm and energy have turned out to be very different from what it expected and hoped for.
The Tunisian revolution did not release any “anti-imperialist” sentiment; the Egyptian revolution did not burn American flags in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, nor annul the 1978 treaty with Israel. The whole notion that the Tunisians and Egyptians were imitating the Khomeini revolutionary model, a notion promoted by the Iranian leaders, was proven wrong.
Moreover, the radical prophecy that the west and its influence are going to shrink in the region was also proved wrong. The international intervention in Libya widened the presence of the west and its influence in the Arab world. What is more annoying to the radical camp is that this intervention is welcomed by most Libyans and acceptable to most of the Arabs.
Syria also contradicted them. Bashar al-Assad told the Wall Street Journal that his country is stable because his regime is “very closely linked to the beliefs of the people”. A few weeks later, the uprising started in Syria. Damascus’s “steadfastness” and “confrontational policy” - which led it to support the Lebanese group Hizbollah, the Palestinian group Hamas and the Iraqi terrorists who call themselves the “Iraqi resistance” - did not help much.
Syria’s upheaval might be the most important development of all: not just because of its central location and the influence it can exert on Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also because Syria is the bridge through which Iranian influence can reach the Arab middle east.
The demonstrators in the Arab streets did not chant revolutionary slogans; they did not ask for arms or call for “resistance”. They chanted instead: “peaceful, peaceful”. The mood of young Arab people differed entirely from those of previous decades. This might change in the future; but for the moment it is safe to say that peacefulness has the upper hand
The al-Jazeera TV station, seen as the voice of Arab radicals, changed course. Those who believed its revolutionary rhetoric discovered the bitter fact: al-Jazeera had used that rhetoric as an instrument of the Qatari regime and its ambitions. Qatar now is part of the international intervention in Libya; it is part of the conservative and repressive Gulf policy toward Bahrain. The Qatari emir went to the United States to thank President Obama for “supporting democracy in the Arab world”. When Qatar changed, al-Jazeera had to change. This is manifested in its elaborate coverage of the Syrian uprising.
In this context, two further aspects of the Arab revolutions are relevant. First, Osama bin Laden's death came as a mere detail. The uprisings killed Bin Laden politically before he died at the Americans’ hands. Second, Israel has the capacity greatly to help in accelerating the positive transition and curbing radical tendencies in the Arab world. At present, it is doing the contrary under Benjamin Netanyahu and the ultra-right chauvinist coalition he leads.
But the cumulative outcome of these changes is a devastating loss for the radical camp. In their totality, they challenge the dogmas that have long poisoned Arab political culture. It is time for the dogmas to be discarded, and for real understanding and self-awareness to take their place.
Saturday, June 18
FBI to Expand Domestic Surveillance Powers as Details Emerge of Its Spy Campaign Targeting Activists
Civil liberties advocates are raising alarm over news the FBI is giving agents more leeway to conduct domestic surveillance. According to the New York Times, new guidelines will allow FBI agents to investigate people and organizations “proactively” without firm evidence for suspecting criminal activity. We speak to former FBI agent Mike German, who now works at the American Civil Liberties Union, and Texas activist Scott Crow, who has been the focus of intense FBI surveillance from 2001 until at least 2008.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Crow received 440 pages of heavily redacted documents revealing the FBI had set up a video camera outside his house, traced the license plates of cars parked in front of his home, recorded the arrival and departure of his guests, and observed gatherings that Crow attended at bookstores and cafes.
The agency also tracked Crow’s emails and phone conversations and picked through his trash to identify his bank and mortgage companies. “It’s been definitely traumatizing at different points,” says Crow. “But if we don’t come out and be open about this, then they’ve already won, and the surveillance and the ‘war on terror’ wins against us.”
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Crow received 440 pages of heavily redacted documents revealing the FBI had set up a video camera outside his house, traced the license plates of cars parked in front of his home, recorded the arrival and departure of his guests, and observed gatherings that Crow attended at bookstores and cafes.
The agency also tracked Crow’s emails and phone conversations and picked through his trash to identify his bank and mortgage companies. “It’s been definitely traumatizing at different points,” says Crow. “But if we don’t come out and be open about this, then they’ve already won, and the surveillance and the ‘war on terror’ wins against us.”
Friday, June 17
F.B.I. Giving Agents New Powers in Revised Manual - NYTimes.com
NYTimes.com
[REPRINT]
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual.
The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.
“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.
“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”
Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.
Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.
Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.
The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.
Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.
The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.
The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.
At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.
In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.
The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.
The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.
Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.
Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: F.B.I. AGENTS GET LEEWAY TO PUSH PRIVACY BOUNDS.
[REPRINT]
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual.
The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.
“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.
Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.
“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”
Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.
Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.
Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.
The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.
Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.
The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.
The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.
At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.
In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.
The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.
The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.
Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.
Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: F.B.I. AGENTS GET LEEWAY TO PUSH PRIVACY BOUNDS.
Wednesday, June 1
Is The FBI Lying To Congress About Its Abuses Of The Patriot Act?
Techdirt
[REPRINT]
by Mike Masnick
As we go through this brief extension in three of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, which give law enforcement tremendous leeway in spying on people with very little oversight, there have been some hearings about those provisions. At a recent Senate Judiciary Hearing about this, FBI director Robert Mueller was asked if any of the three provisions had been found to be abused. Mueller responded, "I'm not aware of any." However, as the EFF notes, it has clear evidence of the roving wiretap being abused, which it found via some FOIA documents. Tellingly, when it requested info about Patriot Act violations, it received heavily redacted info. However, via a different FOIA request, it received other information that, when combined with the first FOIA request, reveals a clear abuse by the FBI. Separately, the EFF points out that (former) Senator Russ Feingold indicated at a hearing in 2009 that he had seen confidential evidence of abuse:
This raises some pretty serious questions. Is Director Mueller simply uninformed about his agency abusing these provisions? Or was he lying to Congress about those abuses? Neither case looks good, and neither suggests that we should renew those provisions.
[REPRINT]
by Mike Masnick
As we go through this brief extension in three of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, which give law enforcement tremendous leeway in spying on people with very little oversight, there have been some hearings about those provisions. At a recent Senate Judiciary Hearing about this, FBI director Robert Mueller was asked if any of the three provisions had been found to be abused. Mueller responded, "I'm not aware of any." However, as the EFF notes, it has clear evidence of the roving wiretap being abused, which it found via some FOIA documents. Tellingly, when it requested info about Patriot Act violations, it received heavily redacted info. However, via a different FOIA request, it received other information that, when combined with the first FOIA request, reveals a clear abuse by the FBI. Separately, the EFF points out that (former) Senator Russ Feingold indicated at a hearing in 2009 that he had seen confidential evidence of abuse:
"I recall during the debate in 2005 that proponents of Section 215 argued that these authorities had never been misused. They cannot make that statement now. They have been misused. I cannot elaborate here. But I recommend that my colleagues seek more information in a classified setting."On top of that, they point to a 2007 report (pdf) from the Office of the Inspector General at the Justice Dept, which notes two cases of the FBI abusing those 215 orders.
This raises some pretty serious questions. Is Director Mueller simply uninformed about his agency abusing these provisions? Or was he lying to Congress about those abuses? Neither case looks good, and neither suggests that we should renew those provisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
