OpEd
Opinion and editorial pieces about privacy, civil rights and more.

 


















Subscribe to "OpEd" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 

 

  Friday, March 9, 2007


The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.

And for three years the FBI underreported to Congress how often it forced businesses to turn over the customer data, the audit found.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversees the FBI, described the problems cited in the report as unacceptable and left open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further investigation.

"Once we get that information, we'll be in a better position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken," Gonzales told reporters following a speech to privacy officials.

[...]

The FBI also used so-called "exigent letters," signed by officials at FBI headquarters who were not authorized to sign national security letters, to obtain information. In at least 700 cases, these exigent letters were sent to three telephone companies to get toll billing records and subscriber information.

"In many cases, there was no pending investigation associated with the request at the time the exigent letters were sent," the audit concluded.

In a letter to Fine, Gonzales asked the inspector general to issue a follow-up audit in July on whether the FBI had followed recommendations to fix the problems.

"To say that I am concerned about what has been revealed in this report would be an enormous understatement," Gonzales told the privacy officials. "Failure to adequately protect information privacy simply is a failure to do our jobs."

Senators outraged over the conclusions signaled they would provide tougher oversight of the FBI -- and perhaps limit its power.

"The report indicates abuse of the authority" Congress gave the FBI, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt. "You cannot have people act as free agents on something where they're going to be delving into your privacy."

The committee's top Republican, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), said the FBI appears to have "badly misused national security letters." The senator said, "This is, regrettably, part of an ongoing process where the federal authorities are not really sensitive to privacy and go far beyond what we have authorized."

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., another member on the panel that oversees the FBI, said the report "proves that 'trust us' doesn't cut it."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the audit proves Congress must amend the Patriot Act to require judicial approval anytime the FBI wants access to sensitive personal information. "The Attorney General and the FBI are part of the problem and they cannot be trusted to be part of the solution," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director.


4:34:53 PM    

Policy Makers call for University Internet Filters.

At today[base ']s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property hearing, titled [base "]An Update - Piracy on University Networks,[per thou] we heard from legislators that they[base ']re very concerned about [base "]piracy[per thou] on campus networks.

You should be able to watch the video of the hearing here.

The common theme of the solutions was not only educating students (which all of the witnesses said that they were working on collaboratively), but for campuses to employ technology to filter the packets flowing over the network.

read more

[Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts]
12:16:28 PM    

Video: the New Kid for the Block.

It looks like video sites are the new flashpoint in the battle against free speech online. Perhaps it is that many states control television broadcasts far more tightly than they control the press. Judges across the world clearly think they understand how to censor television - and are surprised when their attempts to do the same to video online don't work as effectively.

In January it was Brazilian judges who found themselves caught in a hailstorm of criticism when attempting to prevent all Brazilians from downloading a salacious video of a Brazilian celebrity. When the only method of obeying the order at local ISP's disposal was blocking all of YouTube from Brazil, Brazilian net users rose up and complained. The decision was overturned three days later.

This week, it was Turkey, whose Istanbul First Criminal Court ordered Turk Telekom to redirect its users away from YouTube to prevent them seeing a video that poured scorn on Turkey and the country's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

As in so many cases of government internet censorship, Turkey's reaction has affected the free speech rights of thousands of innocent parties, and done nothing to stop what they want to stop. The growing legions of Turkish net users were denied access to tools to share their own stories, while anti-Ataturk commentary still exists on YouTube and elsewhere. Meanwhile, nationalists inside Turkey found themselves unable to post their own responses to the video, meaning that the ratio of Turkey critics and supporters on YouTube no doubt lurched towards the critics. Those who agreed with the judges that this video was outrageous found themselves as effectively silenced as the video's maker. As one of the four college students who bravely petitioned the court Thursday, Kursat Cetinkoz, said:

"Banning access to the Website does not punish those who did that (posted the videos) but the citizens of the Turkish Republic."

It looks as if the court will now restore access now that the one video has been removed. To YouTube's credit, the company did not remove the video itself. Then again, it didn't have to: the original user appears to have deleted it from his or her account.

The reaction in Turkey, and fear of discovery and retribution by the creator may have played its part in that personal decision. For free speech online to grow, we need to have not only network operators that cannot be intimidated, but we also need safety through anonymity for speakers. Tor, and services like it, work for both viewers and writers. With Tor and other anti-censorship programs, bypassing the court's censorship was straightforward - and publishing via anonymizers helps give intimated speakers the confidence to stand their ground.

[EFF: Deep Links]
12:13:14 PM    


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2007 Paul Hardwick.
Last update: 3/18/07; 8:16:43 PM.

March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Feb   Apr