Loss of Privacy

At the second annual National Fusion Center conference in San Francisco, the nation’s top law enforcement and anti-terror officials got together to sort of let the public know what they’ve been up to lately.  In the past, each section of law enforcement, from Interpol to your local sheriff, treated each other with disdain and with a great reluctance to divulge information to one another.  That healthy suspicion has now seemed to have disappeared.

The fifty or so U.S. fusion centers are where the federal, state and local cops share intelligence, sift data for clues, run down reports of suspicious packages and connect dots in an effort to detect and thwart terrorism attacks, drug smuggling and gang fighting. The fifty or so U.S. fusion centers are where the federal, state and local cops share intelligence, sift data for clues, run down reports of suspicious packages and connect dots in an effort to detect and thwart terrorism attacks, drug smuggling and gang fighting.

The suspicion, however, remains.  It has just shifted to a different group of people.

Privacy and civil liberties groups are increasingly suspicious of the fusion centers, but state and local officials have complained for years that the feds don’t share any useful information. The 9/11 Commission agreed, blaming the CIA and FBI’s lack of information-sharing for wasted chances to stop the airline hijackings. The commission strongly urged they change their ways and put holes in so-called “stove pipes.” And in 2007, the Democrats boosted fusion centers’ stature and funding in the first bill they passed after taking control of Congress.

The dominant catchphrase from the officials was that the centers need to focus on “all threats, all hazards.” That means that the fusion centers would be working on immigration, radicalization, demographic changes, hurricanes, biological and chemical threats, as well as common criminal activity. Officials say the centers must look at even the most mundane crimes, since they can be used to fund terrorism.

But critics say that “all hazards, all threats” approach sounds suspiciously like the government is building a distributed domestic intelligence service that could easily begin keeping tabs on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. The scope also seems at odds with the federal government’s Information Sharing Environment guidelines, which say these centers are supposed to focus on terrorism.

So, we’ve already proved, many times in the past century, that law enforcement can’t be trusted with this type of responsibility, yet, here we are again, ready to give over more power for a mandate that wasn’t construed for such matters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has pointed to potential abuse of the system, however, the federal government thinks they are over-reacting.  If over-reacting is pointing out that Virginia wants to eliminate sunshine laws for these fusion centers, give legal immunity to companies that report information and prosecute people who take pictures of buildings then, by all means, please keep over-reacting.

If over-reacting also includes pointing out that the Justice Department used back channels to add people not even under investigation to their watch lists [pdf], again, keep over-reacting.  We need to know this is happening and isn’t subject to review.

If you’re concerned about how these fusion centers are being set up and what powers they have, then check out the ACLU’s warning report and interactive map.

While many US states are rejecting REAL-ID, Japan has been quietly implementing it’s own ID system, with little resistance or complaints from its citizens.  The Juki Net, begun in 1992, is a system that has uniquely identified every Japanese citizen with an 11-digit number.  Included in the ID is the citizen’s name, address, date of birth, and gender.

Little resistance to the scheme may arise from the fact that many Japanese do not even know that such a system exists.  That all changed when lawsuits over concerns of leaks, misuse, and constitutionality arose.

Juki Net had a spotlight shone on it recently because a number of citizens around the country sued against it, citing concerns of information misuse or leakage. And while an Osaka court ruled against the system, the Japanese Supreme Court has just ruled it is not unconstitutional, on the grounds that the data will be used in a bona-fide manner and there’s no risk of leakage. While there is a longstanding registration system for us foreigners in Japan, what astonishes me is how the government can secretly implement such a system for its citizens, and how little concern the media and Japanese citizens in general display about the privacy implications.

Link

What’s the best way to lose what little prestige you have left in the world?  Start banning people from even flying over your precious airspace.  That’s Washington’s plan for their latest attempt at protecting us from terrorists.

Under anti-terrorism measures due to come into force within two years, the US authorities insist they need to do background checks on all UK air passengers travelling to Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico and South America.

Those pesky foreigners are attempting to circumvent…uhm…something…so we need all their travel information before we let them into our hemisphere.

We weren’t even this paranoid during the Nazi regime or the Cold War.

Anyone identified as having “suspicious indicators associated with travel behaviour” by US security would be prevented from boarding their flight.

No one really defines what constitutes these suspicious indicators, so we’re all at risk and, because most airlines skirt the USA in case of emergencies, nearly everyone flying anywhere near the USA is going to be affected by these measures.

Beginning March 27th, all domestic passengers passing through Heathrow’s terminal 5 will have their photograph and four fingerprints taken when they check in.  Photographs will be checked against faces before boarding the aircraft and fingerprints will be taken again at this time.

Although the BAA says that the biometric data will be destroyed within 24 hours, the record of where a person is traveling will not be, leaving photographs and travel information to be mined by law enforcement agencies.  The BAA says that the information will never be passed on to the police.  That may be true now, but because the BAA insists that this information is necessary to catch terrorists and illegal immigrants, it is only a matter of time before this information will be required to be turned over to law enforcement agencies.

If you are going to destroy the fingerprints, what is the point of taking them in the first place?  Surely, a photograph will suffice in checking to see if the person who checked in is, indeed, the same person getting on the plane.

International passengers will not be fingerprinted, as they must show a passport when they check in and before they board their flight.

So, international passengers do not need to be fingerprinted in the UK because their passport photo is good enough, but its own citizens have to give up more personally identifiable biometrics?  Who thought that made sense?

The BAA had to see this coming, with their decision to allow domestic and international passengers to wander through the same terminal.

The controversial security measure is also set to be introduced at Gatwick, Manchester and Heathrow’s Terminal 1, and many airline industry insiders believe fingerprinting could become universal at all UK airports within a few years.

Within the next few weeks BAA will announce plans for voluntary fingerprinting under a so-called “trusted traveller” scheme. Those willing to have their fingerprints and passport information stored would be able to bypass immigration queues by placing their finger on a scanner instead of waiting to have their passport checked.

Oh, I see.  This is a scheme to get all citizens to give up their information and allow their biometrics to be stored as well.  This is a brilliant scam to fool the people into bypassing privacy laws and give away their information gleefully.

One option could be to routinely check fingerprints against the criminal record database – a step which is currently only taken when immigration officers have a reason to be suspicious.

And there’s the rub.  Become a “trusted traveler” or else you’ll be suspected of doing something criminal.  It’s funny how none of this was necessary when the IRA was active.

With this new attitude, the terrorists have already won.  Far too many people are allowing their governments to give them the allusion of security, while joyfully handing over their long standing freedoms.

Just imagine the carnage that is going to happen when all these people have to wait in even longer lines due to these new security measures and one or two suicide bombers waltz into the airport and blow themselves up.

These draconian measures are quickly turning me off to flying overseas.  These new measures will see a drop in tourism to the UK.  I will certainly rethink going to the UK again.  Maybe I’ll take the train from Paris, until that’s included as well.  The more countries that force biometrics mean the more countries I mentally tick off my list of places to visit.

A year and a half ago Google began developing technology for personal health records and has recently gotten a boost by joining with the Cleveland Clinic.

Cleveland Clinic is at the cutting edge of health information technology, and its more than 100,000 patients each has a personal health record. But a sizable portion of those patients are retirees, notes Dr. C. Martin Harris, the clinic’s chief information officer. Many of them, he said, spend about five months elsewhere, typically in Florida or Arizona, and the clinic’s sophisticated electronic health records don’t follow them there.

Enter Google Health, which can store a patient’s information online, accessible through a secure website, allowing patients to take their information with them.  Google, however, isn’t the only company trying to get in on the action.  Microsoft’s HealthVault is also competing for the attention of patients and currently has more partnerships than Google.

While it’s still not entirely clear what Google’s personal health record will be like, its approach seems to be ambitious and comprehensive. Google has its own user interface, while Microsoft, for example, appears to be focusing on back-end storage. Google is offering automated data links, so the patient does not have to type in personal data, as is required with some personal health records. And Google, along with Microsoft, has the deep pockets and technological knowhow to offer personal health records free to millions.

There are several companies, with several different programs already in the works.  No one knows if they will be compatible with each other or what will happen once their networks are hacked.  Hillary Clinton thinks all Americans should have their medical records digitized, but is she going to pay for the costs of recovering your data and identity once it’s been compromised?

What is going to happen when people are denied jobs because current and potential employers have access to individuals’ medical information?  If you think it can’t happen because of HIPAA laws, you’re mistaken.  It’s already happening.