Cell phone privacy

If you use a cellphone, your movements are recorded by your carrier. How long do the carriers retain such data?

An internal Department of Justice document shows cell phone service providers keep that information for more than a year, Crump told the committee. Verizon stores the cell towers used by a mobile phone for “one rolling year;” T-Mobile USA keeps this information “officially 4-6 months, really a year or more;” Sprint and Nextel store this data for “18-24 months;” and AT&T/Cingular retains it “from July 2008 [over four years].”

And, of course, if the carriers have the data, the government comes looking for it. At a hearing yesterday in Washington, privacy advocates pushed in favor of a proposed national law to require a warrant for such requests and law enforcement objected, even though such information can provide a total picture of a person’s movements over months and years.

TSA quote of the day

So finally an actual plot has been foiled, a real-live bomb has been kept off a plane, and what role was played by the TSA? None.

In fact, the Christian Science Monitor reports that, “It was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected” the Underwear Bomb 2.0. And speculation has been revived that al-Qaeda is working on bombs implanted in the wannabe martyrs’ bodies.

In other words, the next (as Janet Napolitano calls it) “little ping” on your privates will be completely pointless. The terrorists have already beaten the system.

But that’s been the problem from the beginning: You can’t beat the terrorists by playing defense. Forget the fact that the TSA didn’t stop this bombing. Can you name a bomb plot they have foiled?

* * *

So why do we treat every passenger like an al-Qaeda suspect? Why do we as citizens put up with it?

I love how the reaction to this new, undetectable bomb from TSA supporters has been “This proves we should be abusing passengers even more!” The answer for their uselessness and stupidity is more useless stupidity.

Michael Graham, countering the TSA calls for even more offensive, ineffective airport security in the face of the fact that TSA had no part whatsoever in the undercover work that turned up the plot.

FBI wants wiretap backdoors to Internet

Declan McCullagh, writing in CNET:

The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require the firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.

In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.

The FBI general counsel’s office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly.

It is time, once again, for the Internet community to man the barricades and push back on a further erosion of privacy rights in this country.

What do you know about CISPA?

CISPA, the Computer Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, passed the House with a large majority yesterday. Unfortunately, because of an amendment adopted just before passage of the bill, CISPA essentially eliminates all fourth amendment protections on the Internet. The online world becomes totally open to surveillance, notwithstanding any other law.

…CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.

The President has threatened to veto CISPA in its present form if it gets to his desk, but who knows if he will follow through.

A terrific FAQ on the potential impact is available here.

The latest TSA “terrorist”

The latest victim of TSA abuse is a 7 year old girl with cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities.  After reviewing the situation, the TSA declared that nothing was done inappropriately.

“TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child,” the agency said.

So much for “TSA Cares.”

Four year old terrorized by TSA

The TSA is at it again.

“When my Four-year-old daughter noticed her Grandmother, she excitedly ran over to give her a hug, as children often do,” Michelle Brademeyer wrote in a lengthy Facebook post detailing the ordeal. “They made very brief contact, no longer than a few seconds. The Transportation Security Officers(TSO) who were present responded to this very simple action in the worst way imaginable.”

According to Brademeyer, a TSO “began yelling” at Izzy and ordered her to wait for a pat-down. She was prevented from approaching her mother, and told to “come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs.” Frightened, Izzy screamed “I don’t want to” and bolted. She was returned to the security area, but not before a TSO threatened to shut down the airport and cancel all flights if Izzy was not restrained.

And check out this one.

Dominate. Intimidate. Control.

The headline of this post is the moto proudly displayed at the TSA’s air marshal training center. And it tells you everything you need to know about the TSA. It views its function as intimating and controlling US citizens. And the TSA is always looking for new ways to deploy such intimidation and control.

But it doesn’t stop at the airports, rather the TSA is on a mission to establish a police state in the United States.

Anyone who rode the bus in Houston, Texas during the 2-10pm shift last Friday faced random bag checks and sweeps by both drug-sniffing dogs and bomb-sniffing dogs (the latter being only canines necessary if “preventing terrorism” were the actual intent of these raids), all courtesy of a joint effort between TSA VIPR [Visual Intermodal Protection and Response] nests and three different local and county-level police departments. The new Napolitano doctrine, then: “Show us your papers, show us everything you’ve got, justify yourself or you’re not allowed to go about your everyday business.”

* * *

See, if you don’t support the random harassment of ordinary people riding the bus to work, you’re a callous bastard who doesn’t care about little old ladies.

No specific threats or reasons were cited for the raids, as the government no longer even pretends to need any. Vipers bite you just because they can. TSA spokesman Jim Fotenos confirmed this a few days before the Houston raids, when VIPR teams and local police did the same thing to travelers catching trains out of the Amtrak station in Alton, Illinois. Fotenos confirmed that “It was not in response to a specific threat,” and bragged that VIPR teams conduct “thousands” of these operations each year.

Still, apologists can pretend that’s all good, pretend constitutional and human rights somehow don’t apply to mass transit, and twist their minds into the Mobius pretzel shapes necessary to find random searches of everyday travelers compatible with any notion that America is a free country. “Don’t like the new rules for mass transit? Then drive.”

Send in the drones

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Unman...

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Unmanned aerial vehicle of the CBP Air and Marine Unmanned Aircraft System. (Predator unarmed) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In response to a FOIA request submitted by the EFF, the FAA has released a two lists of its authorizations to fly drones in the United States. One list (called COA) covers governmental entities and a second list covers drone manufacturers who are flight-testing their products.

The EFF has a full summary of what it found and a map showing where the listed entities are located here.

Some of the entities on the COA list are unsurprising. For example, journalists have reported that Customs and Border Protection uses Predator drones to patrol the borders. It is also well known that DARPA and other branches of the military are authorized to fly drones in the US. However, this is the first time we have seen the broad and varied list of other authorized organizations, including universities, police departments, and small towns and counties across the United States. The COA list includes universities and colleges like Cornell, the University of Colorado, Georgia Tech, and Eastern Gateway Community College, as well as police departments in North Little Rock, Arkansas; Arlington, Texas; Seattle, Washington; Gadsden, Alabama; and Ogden, Utah, to name just a few. The COA list also includes small cities and counties like Otter Tail, Minnesota and Herington, Kansas. The Google map linked above plots out the locations we were able to determine from the lists, and is color coded by whether the authorizations are active, expired or disapproved.

The second list we received includes all the manufacturers that have applied for authorizations to test-fly their drones. This list is less surprising and includes manufacturers like Honeywell, the maker of Miami-Dade’s T-Hawk drone; the huge defense contractor Raytheon; and General Atomics, the manufacturer of the Predator drone. This list also includes registration or “N” numbers,” serial numbers and model names, so it could be useful for determining when and where these drones are flying.

Keep in mind that drones will almost certainly reduce the privacy of citizen activities, and their are questions about whether and to what extent they can be used to watch citizens acting on their own property without a warrant. And they can operate undetected.

Now drones are also being used domestically for non-military purposes, raising significant privacy concerns. For example, this past December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purchased its ninth drone. It uses these drones inside the United States to patrol the U.S. borders—which most would argue is within its agency mandate—but it also uses them to aid state and local police for routine law enforcement purposes. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported in December that CBP used one of its Predators to roust out cattle rustlers in North Dakota. The Times quoted local police as saying they “have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June.” State and local police are also using their own drones for routine law enforcement activities from catching drug dealers to finding missing persons. Some within law enforcement have even proposed using drones to record traffic violations.

Drones are capable of highly advanced and almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. They carry various types of equipment including live-feed video cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. Some newer drones carry super high resolution “gigapixel” cameras that can “track people and vehicles from altitudes above 20,000 feet[,] . . . [can] monitor up to 65 enemies of the State simultaneously[, and] . . . can see targets from almost 25 miles down range.” Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions, and one drone unveiled at DEFCON last year can crack Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone conversations—without the knowledge or help of either the communications provider or the customer. Drones are also designed to carry weapons, and some have suggested that drones carrying weapons such as tasers and bean bag guns could be used domestically.

The land of the free

Most Federal courts have ruled that the government is free to confiscate a US citizen’s computer and cellphone when the citizen enters the US from a foreign country. The contents of those devices can be fully copied and retained without any time limit. And this action requires no warrant or reasonable cause.

Glen Greenwald describes the plight of a US documentary film-maker who has been stopped, and had her devices confiscated, on every entry she makes returning from abroad.

… Poitras’ work has been hampered, and continues to be hampered, by the constant harassment, invasive searches, and intimidation tactics to which she is routinely subjected whenever she re-enters her own country. Since the 2006 release of “My Country, My Country,” Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every time during that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.

She has had her laptop, camera and cellphone seized, and not returned for weeks, with the contents presumably copied. On several occasions, her reporter’s notebooks were seized and their contents copied, even as she objected that doing so would invade her journalist-source relationship. Her credit cards and receipts have been copied on numerous occasions. In many instances, DHS agents also detain and interrogate her in the foreign airport before her return, on one trip telling her that she would be barred from boarding her flight back home, only to let her board at the last minute. When she arrived at JFK Airport on Thanksgiving weekend of 2010, she was told by one DHS agent — after she asserted her privileges as a journalist to refuse to answer questions about the individuals with whom she met on her trip — that he “finds it very suspicious that you’re not willing to help your country by answering our questions.” They sometimes keep her detained for three to four hours (all while telling her that she will be released more quickly if she answers all their questions and consents to full searches).

Poitras is now forced to take extreme steps — ones that hamper her ability to do her work — to ensure that she can engage in her journalism and produce her films without the U.S. Government intruding into everything she is doing. She now avoids traveling with any electronic devices. She uses alternative methods to deliver the most sensitive parts of her work — raw film and interview notes — to secure locations. She spends substantial time and resources protecting her computers with encryption and password defenses. Especially when she is in the U.S., she avoids talking on the phone about her work, particularly to sources. And she simply will not edit her films at her home out of fear — obviously well-grounded — that government agents will attempt to search and seize the raw footage.

That’s the climate of fear created by the U.S. Government for an incredibly accomplished journalist and filmmaker who has never been accused, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Indeed, documents obtained from a FOIA request show that DHS has repeatedly concluded that nothing incriminating was found from its border searches and interrogations of Poitras. Nonetheless, these abuses not only continue, but escalate, after six years of constant harassment.

When will the assaults on liberty and freedom implemented in the name of “security” be limited? When will the Constitution be restored? This article indicates that one Federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit against such actions can proceed, but we need legislation to broaden the protections.

Strip searches for all

The Supreme Court is back in action, carefully protecting our liberty, privacy, dignity and, most importantly, our freedom. All this in a 5-4 decision. I hope you can hear the sarcasm in these words.

Hit & Run summarizes the import of this ruling nicely:

You may recall that in 2001 the Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment does not preclude “a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.” Today’s ruling not only magnifies the potential humiliation associated with such an arrest; it enhances the already considerable power that police officers have to conduct searches during routine traffic stops. In states (such as Texas) that give police discretion to arrest people for minor traffic offenses such as failing to buckle your seat belt, officers can present drivers with a choice: a search of your car now or a search of your bodily orifices later.

Fortunately, many states currently prohibit this approach in their jails.

UK to monitor ALL communications

According to the BBC, the UK is set to implement a plan to monitor all telephone calls, Internet use and emails throughout the country.

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

This is the ultimate Big Brother society, and one which we seem to be moving towards as well. The total end of privacy is a real risk.

TSA quote of the day

In 2004, the average extra waiting time due to TSA procedures was 19.5 minutes per person. That’s a total economic loss—in–America of $10 billion per year, more than the TSA’s entire budget. The increased automobile deaths due to people deciding to drive instead of fly is 500 per year. Both of these numbers are for America only, and by themselves demonstrate that post-9/11 airport security has done more harm than good.

– Bruce Schneier, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan.