Loss of Privacy

In yet, more bizarre news, the head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has said that he believes that radical Britons could attack the United States. Chertoff was quoted as saying,

the US needed further protection from so-called “clean skins” in Britain or Europe. That is the name given by the intelligence community to those people who feel alienated but have not come to the attention of the authorities.

Apparently, Chertoff believes that, even though the United Kingdom is our ally, they are going to allow terrorists to attack the USA, when those terrorists are a threat to the UK as well.

Michael Chertoff is now telling Americans that everyone, including white people from the UK and Europe, are suspects. He also knows his news speak rather well, alluding to the fact that “clean skins” are people who could be guilty of thought crimes and, therefore, everyone should be checked out, just in case they decided one day to take action.

The key point here, is that Chertoff is targeting citizens that happen to be our number one ally. They are far away (in most American minds) so it’s easy to do this to them. Once Chertoff, and the entire Bush administration, gets the common American to accept this, they’ll be moving on to regular Americans, because, you know, we all could be thinking of kicking Chertoff in the balls, which would be considered assault.

The anti-terror chief also defended plans to check all 10 fingerprints of visitors to the US.

He said it was the “best tool” against terrorism and denied it was next step to taking DNA from passengers.

Meanwhile, we have more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, with more flooding over the borders each day. Terrorists don’t have to worry about flying into America to cause terror, they just have to walk across the border and slip into society unnoticed. And that, folks, will be the next hard line stance that Chertoff will take to justify fingerprinting every single American. Remember, we’re all probably guilty of breaking the law, the government is just here to help you realize it and correct your behavior.

The RIAA and MPAA are, again, lobbying to be above the law.  This time, however, they are trying to convince the California legislature that they should receive an exemption from the newly proposed state legislation that would outlaw pretexting.  Pretexting is the unseemly practice of pretending that you are someone else so that you can obtain personal information about a particular person.

Pretexting, in essence, is a form of wire fraud, which is already outlawed under federal law.  There are far too many people that are duped into giving out personal information, including old mediums, such as telephones, and new mediums, including email and the Internet, in general.

According to the US government, once you create something, it’s copyrighted by law.  What the RIAA and MPAA wants to do is allow anyone who owns a copyright to be exempted from the law.  This would include anyone who creates anything.  If you write an essay for school, you own the copyright to that.  You draw or paint a picture, you own the copyright to that.  In the end, the addendum to the law would be a law that everyone could ignore because everyone would be able to claim exemption to it.

If this type of law were allowed, companies, such as Hewlett-Packard, would be exempted from the pretexting laws because HP holds several patents and copyrights.  We, therefore, would never have known about the pretexting that HP had committed and no one would have been liable to prosecution.  If the RIAA and MPAA have their way, every single company in America could be exempted from fraud charges!  This exemption would be a legal loophole to everyone from phishers to identity thieves to legitimate companies to common people.

But the Recording Industry Assn. of America and the Motion Picture Assn. of America say they sometimes need to use subterfuge as they pursue bootleggers in flea markets and on the Internet.

Why do they need to pretend to be someone else at a flea market?  You walk up to a booth at the flea market, buy some illegal stuff, then call in the cavalry, who will arrest the bootleggers.  Why is it necessary to pretend to be someone else?  I’ve shopped at several dozen different flea markets.  Not once have I had to identify myself when I make a purchase.  This argument from the RIAA and MPAA is purposefully misleading.

“We’re not talking about trying to go in and get customer information. In no case have we ever tried to do that.”

The RIAA  changes to the piracy bill that raised alarms among consumer advocates. The trade group asked that any owner of a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret be able to use “pretexting or other investigative techniques to obtain personal information about a customer or employee” when seeking to enforce intellectual property rights.

Well, which is it?  You’re not going to try to obtain customer information but you want the legal ability to do so?  This is more of the RIAA talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Buckles said the recording association had never, nor would it ever, assume someone’s identity to access that person’s phone or bank records.

Yes, the RIAA and MPAA are very trustworthy, aren’t they?  They are above reproach.  They don’t act in a seedy manner.  They would never lie.  They would never cheat.  They are ethical.  They’ve never tried to get personal information on individuals.  They’ve never bullied innocent people.  They don’t harass individuals.  They don’t waste the time of major universities.  So, we can trust them that they would never abuse this exemption, would they?

Sen. Corbett, the bill’s author, chairs the committee and is unlikely to accept what’s known in legislative parlance as a “hostile amendment.” An attorney and consumer protection advocate, Corbett should receive solid backing from the two other Democratic attorneys on the five-member Judiciary Committee: Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) and Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

Chris Hoofnagle, a privacy attorney at UC Berkeley’s Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, said there was no rational reason to exempt one industry from pretexting laws, especially when information can be legally obtained through subpoenas and other means.

This is exactly how the RIAA and MPAA should continue to pursue their cases.  The problem is that they are losing their cases due to sloppy lawyering, sloppy filing, sloppy investigations, and downright, shoddy work.

There already are laws in place that one must follow to pursue criminals.  What the RIAA and MPAA want is an exemption to the law so they can go after whomever they wish, without the fear of repercussions under the law.  The RIAA and MPAA should be hiring better lawyers who actually know the law and can conduct proper, legal research against criminals and then prosecute them under our system of law that has worked and continues to work.  Just because the RIAA and MPAA are too lazy to conduct investigations properly shouldn’t mean that state legislatures should back down and let them do whatever they want by giving them a free pass under the law.

Vermont has had enough.  After standing up to the government numerous times, including sitting out during the War of 1812, fighting in the Civil War solely to end slavery, and refusing to raise the legal drinking age until forced to, Vermont has now rightly declared that the US government has destroyed the 10th amendment to the US Constitution and no longer wants to be a party to a country that refuses to  allow the States to continue to exist as they should under the US Constitution.

Vermont seceded from the British Empire in 1777 and stood free for 14 years, until 1791. Its constitution — which preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than a decade — was the first to prohibit slavery in the New World and to guarantee universal manhood suffrage. Vermont issued its own currency, ran its own postal service, developed its own foreign relations, grew its own food, made its own roads and paid for its own militia. No other state, not even Texas, governed itself more thoroughly or longer before giving up its nationhood and joining the Union.

Vermont can, and does, take care of its own, providing the US government doesn’t insist on meddling into their lives.

A decade before the War of Independence, Vermont became New England’s first frontier, settled by pioneers escaping colonial bondage who hewed settlements across a lush region whose spine is the Green Mountains. These independent folk brought with them what Henry David Thoreau called the “true American Congress” — the New England town meeting, which is still the legislature for nearly all of Vermont’s 237 towns. Here every citizen is a legislator who helps fashion the rules that govern the locality.

What Vermonters, and a few other states want, is a peaceful secession.  This is due, largely, to their distaste for the US government’s ever increasing role in society and the erosion of each state’s 10th amendment rights.  There are also other reasons for their insistence on secession.

First, the cost of oil and gas. According to urban planner James Howard Kunstler, “Anything organized on a gigantic scale … will probably falter in the energy-scarce future.” Second, third-wave technology is as inherently democratic and decentralist as second-wave technology was authoritarian and centralist. Gov. Jim Douglas wants Vermont to be the first “e-state,” making broadband Internet access available to every household and business in the state by 2010. Vermont will soon be fully wired into the global social commons.

Aside from the 10th amendment issue, many of these plans cannot be completed in a society that relies solely on the federal arm of the government in Washington to take care of all the planning and implementation.

The question remains, is it legal for a state to secede from the Union?  If so, how will they deal with the problems of immigration, imports, and exports?  Will Vermonters be considered dual-citizens or must they give up their American citizenship?  What will they do about property taxes?  Most land is, technically, owned by the federal government so, if you have a mortgage, who exactly will you pay?

While I admire Vermont for even contemplating the idea of seceding, they need to stay and continue to fight against big government.  They are already on the right track.  They are fighting things like REAL-ID, along with the loudest dissenter of New Hampshire.  They need to keep fighting.  Keep yelling.  Keep telling the federal government no.  Without Vermonters keeping up the good fight, most of America would just roll over and accept the federal leash on placed upon us.

Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, and, of course, Texas are also in the fight to change things back and return the powers of the 10th amendment.  The lines for a new Civil War are being drawn.  This time, however, it is going to be a war of words, peaceful, but determined to return states’ rights to the States.  The winds of secession may be blowing in the Green Mountain State but they’d be better off using that energy to regroup and fight against the federal government.  The very thought that Vermont is mulling over seceding is a powerful statement.  It should show the rest of America, and the world, that we are all sick and tired of being led around by the blackmailing politicians in Washington who continue to hold onto our purse strings for their own benefit.

In October 2006, President Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.  The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal military personnel from acting as a police force within the United States except when authorized by the US Congress or Constitution.  It was passed to strictly limit the government’s powers.

Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government’s ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law–under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

The article, however, quotes Sec. 1042 when it should be Section 1076.  Posse Comitatus has it’s pros and cons.  We saw kind of help it could be during the L.A. Riots in 1992.  Most people do not worry and, if we had any other president right now, most people would not be worrying about the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.  However, we have seen the president continue to strip American citizens of their freedoms and lead them down the path to a police state, that this new act is worrying.

Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where “rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or “other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”

No doubt, the Bush administration will hold this Act up to the people and say, “see, now if another Katrina happens, we can help.”  The fact is, they could have helped during Katrina because FEMA had the authority to do so but couldn’t be arsed to do anything in a timely manner.  This was partly due to the fact that Bush slashed FEMA’s budget so that he could fund the Department of Homeland Security.  A Katrina incident should not be the responsibility of the military, however, Bush wants it them to be responsible and his overriding of Posse Comitatus does just that.  Are you starting to see a pattern here of Bush’s extreme disdain for the Constitution and the laws of the United States?

The fact is we need Posse Comitatus because it protects us.  A little over a year ago, Bush said that he would institute martial law if there were some sort of outbreak like Avian Flu.  He’d rather turn straight to the police state than get some vaccines, give out free health care, and let the police do their jobs.  George Bush is dismantling all the legalities that restrain the powers of the executive branch and is creating an executive branch answerable to no one.

In 2002, the government created the new Northern Command. This is the first time since the Civil War that the U.S. military has been given an operational command inside the continental United States.

In 2005, the Washington Post reported that Northcom had developed battle plans for martial law in the U.S. One secret document, CONPLAN 2005, envisions 15 different scenarios where these plans could go into effect.

In 2006, the Military Commissions Act was passed which, in addition to legalizing torture, allows the president and military courts to declare anyone an enemy combatant without basic civil rights like habeas corpus.

There is also the massive spying, aided by AT&T, on unsuspecting citizens, and the building of large detention and processing centers to be used “in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S. or to support the rapid development of new programs.”  We all need to wake up and smell the police state.

While there are people out there who really care and call and write their representatives, there don’t seem to be enough of them crying out, begging, for these horrible changes to stop sneaking their way into our laws and our lives.  We gave our representatives the power to represent us, not Bush, not some dictator wannabe, not corporations.

I’ve never been a big advocate of having personal weapons.  While I agree we all should be allowed to have them, and that’s protected in the Constitution, I’ve never felt the need to own one, until now.  If not enough people take a stand against this, then we will need these weapons in the near future to protect us from our government and to, hopefully, replace it.

Godwin’s law would usually prevent me from stating this but, after the Reichstag fire, Hitler was able to easily suspend civil liberties with a decree.  I’m not saying that Bush is quite Hitler, however, instead of suspending our civil liberties and society in one fail swoop, he is doing it piecemeal so that no one notices.  He has already put the necessary pieces into place.  All he needs now is to finish dismantling the barriers to an all powerful executive and we will no longer recognize the America our forefathers fought to preserve and that we have come to enjoy and take for granted.

Europe has been known as the place where privacy is valued and defended that belief rigorously.  Now, many individual countries are preparing legislation that would be more stringent in tracking individuals than the European Union directive already in place.  In particular, Germany and The Netherlands have proposed the most invasive laws of their European counterparts.

In Germany, a proposal from the Ministry of Justice would essentially prohibit using false information to create an e-mail account, making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal.

A draft law in the Netherlands would likewise go further than the European Union requires, in this case by requiring phone companies to save records of a caller’s precise location during an entire mobile phone conversation.

Of course, there will be many who will find a way around this type of system but the question is, why is it that we need this type of tracking in order to feel safe?  Why do we allow ourselves to be tracked?  Why do we not realize that any data like this can be manipulated to say whatever the authorities want it to say.  These draconian measures are completely unnecessary, yet, individual EU countries are still pushing these laws because their governments are starting to realize that those in dissent to what is happening in their respective countries are voicing their opinions and organizing online.  These governments see their citizens as a threat and will do whatever it takes to track them and stop them.  Claiming that it is to provide security is, yet again, a red herring.

The problem, as usual, is that this will not work.  These legislative officials, sitting behind big desks with pretty views have no clue how easily this will be defeated.  Encryption, proxies, and other ways not yet devised, will be used.  What will happen is that honest, hardworking people, such as your grandma, me, you, your little cousin, and clueless people will be the only ones that are tracked.  Those that know and understand the game will not.  This will necessitate special task forces to be created to track those that would elude the law.  Oh, wait.  We already have this.  So, why create this new law if it isn’t to keep track of ordinary citizens?

It has also been suggested that tracking emails would be done by requiring a person to register with something else that is trackable, such as a national ID card.  However, it’s unknown if European law would apply to places such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, and other providers who are based in the United States.

Jörg Hladjk, a privacy lawyer at Hunton & Williams, a Brussels law firm, said that might also mean that it could become illegal to pay cash for prepaid cellphone accounts. The billing information for regular cellphone subscriptions is already verified.

We aren’t any safer than we were pre-9/11 and we aren’t any more at risk.  9/11 was just the galvanizing force for governments to claim that we need more laws to protect people from terrorists.  Then, when you are tracked a little bit more, they claim that the bad guys are doing something else and we must take a little bit more privacy so that you can be a little more secure.  But it’s all a false sense of security.  They know it.  Your average citizen does not.  In the five years since 9/11, there has been no definitive proof that we are safer, better off, or more secure than we were before.

As it stands now, it would be difficult to get this legislation passed.  It violates several German and Dutch laws already in effect, as well as violating the European Convention on Human Rights.  Most people do not support the current draft of the legislation but, it is only a matter of time before it is modified and the general population is convinced that this new law is vital to the safety and security of Europe.  We must object to it now before it is, once again, too late.