NAO will also oversee classified information from the National
Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) and other US agencies involved in dealing with
all aspects of national security, including "terrorism."
NSA was established in 1952, is super-secret, and for many
years was never revealed to exist. Today, its capabilities
are awesome and worrisome. It eavesdrops globally, mines
a vast amount of data, and does it through a network of
spy satellites, listening posts, and surveillance planes
to monitor virtually all electronic communications from
landline and cell phones, telegrams, emails, faxes, radio
and television, data bases of all kinds and the internet.
NGA is new and began operating in 2003. It lets military
and intelligence analysts monitor virtually anything or
anyone from state-of-the-art spy satellites. Both NSA and
NGA coordinate jointly with the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) that designs, builds and operates military
spy satellites. It also analyzes military and CIA-collected
aircraft and satellite reconnaissance information.
Combined with warrantless wiretapping, pervasive spying
of all kinds, the abandonment of the law and checks and
balances, intense secrecy, and an array of repressive post-9/11
legislation, Executive Orders and National Security and
Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NAO is another
national security police state tool any despot would love.
It's now established and may be operating without congressional
approval.
Using spy satellites domestically "is largely uncharted
territory," as the Wall Street Journal noted. Even
its architects admit there's no clarity on this, and the
ISG's report stated "There is little if any policy,
guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation
and dissemination of domestic MASINT (Measurement and Signatures
Intelligence)."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the main DOD spy
agency. It manages MASINT that's ultra-secret and sophisticated.
It uses state-of-the-art radar, lasers, infrared sensors,
electromagnetic data and other technologies that can detect
chemicals, electro-magnetic activity, whether a nuclear
power plant produces plutonium, and the type vehicle from
its exhaust. It can also see under bridges, through clouds,
forest canopies and even concrete to create images and collect
data. In addition, it can detect people, activity and weapons
that satellites and photo-reconnaissance aircraft miss,
so it's an invaluable spy tool but highly intrusive and
up to now only for military and foreign intelligence work.
Further, military spy satellites are state-of-the-art and
superior to civilian ones. They record in color as well
as black and white, use different parts of the light spectrum
to track human activities and ground movements and can detect
chemical weapons traces and people-generated heat in buildings.
This much we know about them. Their full potential is top
secret and available only to the military and intelligence
community. The Journal quoted an alarmed Gregory Nojeim,
senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security
and Technology, that advocates for digital age privacy rights
saying: "Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating
intrusive and omnipresent, it's also invisible. And that's
what makes this so dangerous."
Anyone for any reason may be watched at all times (through
walls) with no way to know it, but a June 2001 (before 9/11)
Supreme Court decision offers hope. In Kyllo v. United States,
the Court ruled for petitioner 5 to 4 (with Scalia and Thomas
in the majority). It voided a conviction based on police
use of thermal imaging to detect heat in his triplex to
determine if an illegal drug was being grown, in this case
marijuana.
The Court held: "Where, as here, the Government uses
a device that is not in general public use, to explore details
of a private home that would previously have been unknowable
without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth
Amendment 'search," and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant....To withdraw protection of this minimum
expectation would be to permit police technology to erode
the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment" protecting
against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
In 1981, Ronald Reagan seemed to agree in Executive Order
12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It bars
the intelligence community from most forms of home eavesdropping
while providing wide latitude to all government agencies
to "provide the President and the National Security
Council with the necessary information (needed to) conduct....foreign,
defense and economic policy (and protect US) national interests
from foreign security threats. (Collecting this information
is to be done, however,) consistent with the Constitution
and applicable law...."
That was then, and this is now. It's hard imagining congressional
concern or DHS meaning that NAO will "prioritize the
protection of privacy and civil liberties" and citing
the Reagan Executive Order and the 1974 Privacy Act. That
law mandates that no government agency "shall disclose
any record (or) system of records by any means of communication
to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to
a written request, or with the prior written consent of,
the individual to whom the record pertains." The Privacy
act requires the US government to maintain an administrative
and physical security system to prevent the unauthorized
release of personal records.
Post-9/11, the Patriot Act ended that protection, so DHS
is shameless saying NAO must comply with civil liberties
and privacy laws and be subject to "oversight by the
DHS Inspector General, Chief Privacy Officer, and the Officer
for Civil Rights and Liberties" plus additional oversight.
No longer post-9/11 when the national security state got
repressive new tools to erode the constitution, ignore democratic
principles, and give the President unrestricted powers in
the name of national security. NAO is the latest one watching
us as our "Big Brother in the Sky." Orwell would
be proud.
Real ID Act Update - Another Intrusive Police State Tool
The Read ID Act of 2005 required states to meet federal
ID standards by May, 2008. That's now changed because 29
states passed or introduced laws that refuse to comply.
They call the Act costly to administer, a bureaucratic nightmare,
and New Hampshire said it's "repugnant" and violates
the state and US Constitutions.
The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal
resident have a national ID card that in most cases is a
driver's license meeting federal standards. It requires
it to contain an individual's personal information and makes
one mandatory to open a bank account, board an airplane,
be able to vote, get a job, enter a federal building, or
conduct virtually all essential business requiring identification.
States balked, and that doomed the original version. On
January 11, changes were unveiled when the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) issued binding new rules. Under
them, states have until 2011 to comply (instead of 2008),
until 2014 to issue "tamper-proof licenses" to
drivers born after 1964, and until 2017 for those born before
this date. DHS said the original law would cost states $14
billion. The new regulations with an extended phase-in cuts
the amount to around $3.9 billion or $8 per license.
These numbers may be bogus, however, the true costs may
be far higher, and that's why the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA) is lobbying for Real ID's
passage. Its members include high-tech card makers like
Digimarc and Northrup Grumman and data brokers like Choicepoint
and LexisNexis that profit by selling personal information
to advertisers and the government.
Under new DHS rules, licenses must include a digital photo
taken at the beginning of the application process and a
filament or other security device to prevent counterfeiting.
They must also have three layers of security that states
can select from a DHS menu. In addition, states must begin
checking license applicants' Social Security and immigration
status over the next year.
As of now, a controversial radio frequency identification
(RFID) technology microchip isn't required. It may come
later, however, and here's the problem. It'll let cardholder
movements and activities be tracked everywhere, at all times
- in other words, a police state dream along with other
pervasive spying tools.
Even worse would be mandating human RFID chip implants.
It's not planned so far (but not ruled out), and three states
(California, Wisconsin and North Dakota) preemptively banned
the practice without recipients' consent.
Think it can't happen? Consider a January 13 article in
the London Independent headlined "Prisoners 'to be
chipped like dogs.' " The article states that civil
rights groups and probation officers are furious that "hi-tech
'satellite'.... machine-readable (microchip) tagging (is)
planned (for thousands of offenders) to create more space
in jails." Unlike ankle bracelets now sometimes used,
tiny RFID chips would be surgically implanted for monitoring
the way they're currently used for dogs, cats, cattle and
luggage. They're more reliable, it's believed, as current
devices can be tampered with or removed.
Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO), was quoted saying: "We have looked
at....the practicalities and the ethics (and we concluded)
its time has come." The UK currently has the largest
prison population per capita in western Europe. It sounds
like authorities plan to expand it using fewer cells. It
also sounds like a scheme to tag everyone after testing
them first on prisoners. And consider the possibilities.
RFID technology is advancing, and one company plans deeper
implants that can vibrate, emit electroshocks, broadcast
a message to the implantee, and/or be a hidden microphone
to transmit conversations. It's not science fiction, and
what's planned for the UK will likely come to America. In
fact, it's already here.
In 2004, the FDA approved a grain-of-rice sized, antenna-containing
VeriChip for human implantation that allows vital information
to be read when a person's body is scanned. The company
states on its web site that it's "the world's first
and only patented, FDA-cleared, human-implantable RFID microchip....with
skin-sensing capabilities." Reportedly, about 2000
test subjects now have them, but it may signal mandatory
implantation ahead. Consider for whom for starters - prisoners,
military personnel and possibly anyone seeking employment.
After them, maybe everyone in a brave new global surveillance
world.
It gets worse. Katherine Albrecht authored a report called
"Microchip-Cancer Report - Microchip-Induced Tumors
in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature
1990-2006." After reading it, Dr. Robert Benezra, Director
Cancer Biology, Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center said: "There's no way in the world, having
read this information, that I would have one of those chips
implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members. Given
the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's
definitely cause for concern."
Albrecht's report evaluated 11 previously published toxicology
and pathology studies. In six of them, up to 10.2% of rats
and mice developed malignant tumors (typically sarcomas)
where microchips were implanted. Two others reported the
same findings for dogs. These tumors spread fast and "often
led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases,
the tumors metastasized and spread to other parts of the
animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the
cause of the cancers."
Report reviews, conclusions and recommendations were to
immediately stop further human implantations, inform people
with them of the dangers, offer a microchip removal procedure,
and reverse all animal microchipping mandates.
Debate Ahead on New DHS ID Rules
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said new ID rules require
states to verify each cardholder's personal information
(including a person's legal status in the country) by matching
it against federal Social Security and passport databases
and/or comparable state ones.
States have time to adjust, but Senate Judiciary Chairman
Patrick Leahy wasted no time saying he'll recommend legislation
to ban Real ID drivers' license provisions because "so
many Americans oppose" them. They're intrusive, burdensome,
and federal databases are full of false or out-of-date information
that's hard to disprove, but unless it is Americans will
be denied their legal right to a driver's license.
The ACLU also strongly opposes Real ID because it violates
privacy, lets government agencies share data, and its "tortured
remains" represent an "utterly unworkable"
system that will "irreparably damage the fabric of
American life." An ACLU January 11 press release further
states that DHS "dumped the problems of the statute
on future presidents like a rotting corpse left on (its)
steps (and) whoever is president in 2018." Congress
must "recognize the situation and take action."
The Real ID Act and new DHS rules must be "repealed
and replaced with a clean, simple, and vigorous new driver's
license security law that does not create a national ID"
or violate Americans' privacy.
Futuristic Hi-Tech Profiling
On January 14, Computerworld online revealed more cause
for concern in an article called "Big Brother Really
is Watching." It's about DHS "bankrolling futuristic
profiling technology...." for its Project Hostile Intent.
It, in turn, is part of a broader initiative called the
Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module. It's
to be a self-contained, automated screening system that's
portable and easy to implement, and DHS hopes to test it
at airports in 2010 and deploy it (if it works) by 2012
at airports, border checkpoints, other points of entry and
other security-related areas.
Here's the problem. If developed (reliable or not), these
devices will use video, audio, laser and infrared sensors
to feed real-time data into a computer using "specially
developed algorithms" to identify "suspicious
people." It would work (in theory) by interpreting
gestures, facial expressions and speech variations as well
as measure body temperature, heart and respiration rate,
blood pressure, skin moisture, and other physiological characteristics.
The idea would be detect deception and identify suspicious
people for aggressive interrogation, searches and even arrest.
But consider what's coming. If developed, the technology
may be used anywhere by government or the private sector
for airport or other checkpoint security, buildings, job
interviews, employee screening, buying insurance or conducting
any other type essential business.
Aside from Fourth Amendment issues, here's the problem
according to Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at
security consultant BT Counterpane: "It's a good idea
fraught with difficulties....don't hold your breath"
it will work, and a better idea is to focus on detecting
suspicious objects. Schneier further compares the technology
to lie detectors that rely on "fake technology"
and only work in films. They're used because people want
them although it's acknowledged, even when well-administered,
their median accuracy percentage is 50% at best.
This technology is worse, it may never be reliable, but
may be deployed anyway in the age of "terror."
Something to consider next time we blink going through airport
security, and ACLU Technology and Liberty Project director
Barry Steinhardt states the concern: "We are not going
to catch any terrorists (with it), but a lot of innocent
people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going
to be trapped in a web of suspicion." Even so, DHS
spent billions on this and other screening tools post-9/11.
Expect lots more ahead, and here's the bottom line:
As things now stand, Washington, post-9/11, suspended constitutional
protections in the name of national security and suppressed
our civil liberties for our own good. This article reviewed
their newest tools and wonders what's next. This writer
called it Police State America in December that won't change
with a new White House occupant in 2009 unless organized
resistance stops it. Complacency is unthinkable, and unless
we act, we'll deserve Aleksandr Herzen's curse of another
era - to be the "disease," not the "doctors."
