January 29, 2010
As report previously here and in our blog, The Barr Code, upon entering the United States, be prepared for a mandatory full search of electronic files in your personal portable electronic devices. The Department of Homeland Security has released new rules arming U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents with a means of dismantling any remnants of electronic privacy we have left. These new rules provide clarity on exactly how to invade your privacy upon entering the United States.

For more information, please see,Laptop Search Documents Revealed

January 22, 2010
The FBI and AT&T have worked closely together to monitor the phone calls of innocent citizens and journalists alike. In fact, Telecom employees have voluntarily provided call histories and personal information of their customers to the FBI. What’s worse is President Obama has secretly given the green light to FBI agents to skirt obtaining judicial warrants, the last of any privacy protections Americans have against government spying.

For more information, please see,FBI telecoms teamed to breach wiretap laws


December 11, 2009

It seems as though all forms of privacy are under constant attack, especially your digital privacy. It is becoming increasingly easy to obtain personal information such as phone calls, internet browsing history and now text messaging. It is a cinch for government officials and officers of the court to obtain records of personal text messages, sent from a personal cell phone in legal proceedings such as divorce hearings. Even the American Bar Association offers courses to teach attorneys how to use electronic evidence in proving a case.

For more information, please see,Courses in Digital Snooping




November 25, 2009

As usual, if you want to look ahead to see where the Nanny State is next headed in the United States, just look to our great ally, the United Kingdom. In the latest expansion of the ‘Great British Nanny State,’ British officials are now entering private homes without warrants, to search for ‘safety hazards.’ This procedure is being justified – of course – as necessary for the protection of children by identifying and removing ‘hazards’ in the home.


For more information, please see,
Great Britain: the great nanny state



November 17, 2009

Internet users are under constant threat of sacrificing their privacy whenever they visit websites questioning government policies, political figures, or discussing political dissent. In a particularly troubling example of federal government efforts to intimidate internet users, the U.S. Department of Justice earlier this year (even before current Attorney General Eric Holder was sworn in) had secretly demanded the IP addresses of every visitor to political news site Indymedia.us. on June 25, 2008. The Department’s subpoena, accompanied by a gag order, requested the website administrator for all IP addresses as well as any personal information tied to the addresses such as the individual’s name, address, and phone number. Thankfully, current Attorney General Holder rescinded the subpoena; but the incident highlights the need for privacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to be on the lookout constantly for privacy-invasive attempts by the government to improperly intimidate internet users.

For more information, please see,
Government challenges web-privacy


October 28, 2009

Local governments are routinely issuing surveillance orders to follow, photograph, and electronically eavesdrop on private citizens in the UK, for the most minor of suspected infractions. And, they are doing this without ever having to obtain court approval for such intrusive measures. In fact, this is what happens in a society in which love for technological surveillance is allowed to get out of hand; especially when coupled with a government like Great Britain’s, which does not have a constitutional limitation on surveillance as we do in the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.


For more information, please see,
Britons Weary of Surveillance in Minor Cases

October 1, 2009

The guidelines for spying on Americans are unclear and unknown by the public. Despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit was filed against the FBI, the organization maintains an edited version of its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide on its website blocking out critical information in order to keep the public in the dark about their surveillance procedures.

For more information, please see,
Advocates object to FBI surveillance guidelines

September 22, 2009

The Massachussetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state's Constitution allows police to secretly place a GPS tracker in a suspect's car for up to 15 days without a warrant. While the Court did rule that the police must obtain a warrant before installing such devices, the 15-day "grace period" effectively guts the warrant reinforcement.

For more information, please see, SJC OK’s secret use of GPS devices


September 17, 2009

According to the Baltimore Sun, Shirley Barner bartered an agreement with Baltimore police. The agreement is: police would not let her open her bar unless she agreed to install surveillance cameras. Police alleged that drug sales were taking place on her premises and that patrons had been linked to recent shootings.

Shirley Barner literally could not open her business without agreeing to government surveillance of her property.

For more information, please see, Eyes everywhere

August 25, 2009

There are more than one million surveillance cameras in London, England. Yet a recent survey found that their value in solving crimes and catching criminals was minimal, at best. In fact, for every 1,000 surveillance cameras, only an average of one criminal was nabbed – a success percentage of one-tenth of one percent. A British government official noted that the real value in blanketing the city with surveillance was more to “help communities feel safer” than to actually make them safer.

For more information, please see, 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'



July 13, 2009

After writing and warning about RFID Chips for years now, read this article by Todd Lewan.

Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears


June 24, 2009

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano reportedly has decided to can a Bush Administration plan to employ spy satellites for domestic law enforcement purposes. If confirmed, this move is welcome news to all of us concerned about such a program, which raised serious Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus problems.

Former Bush Administration officials and many Republican congressmen, who supported all manner of privacy-invasive surveillance, programs, can be expected to push for retention of the program. Hopefully, they will fail.

May 15, 2009

Our previous Privacy Watch entry was a “Thumbs Down” because a court in Wisconsin had recently permitted law enforcement to use GPS tracking devices to track citizens for as long as they wished, without first securing warrants from courts based on reasonable suspicion that the targets had violated the law. Now, in a contrary opinion, an appeals court in New York has ruled – properly – that police should not be allowed to use GPS tracking devices without first securing a warrant. The New York court based its ruling on the state’s constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and concluded that allowing police to track a suspect by use of GPS technology was a clear violation of fundamental right to privacy.

“While the law in this area remains a work in progress, the New York ruling will apply to all cases throughout the Empire State, and may influence courts in other states as well.

May 11, 2009

Guess what? You know that GPS system in your car that you use to locate and provide directions to the nearest Starbucks. That’s right – the system you pay for to make your travels easier and safer. A court has just ruled that same GPS system can be used to make law enforcement’s job of tracking your whereabouts easier. They’ve made it so easy, in fact, that law enforcement can use GPS devices to track you anytime, anywhere without bothering to secure a warrant showing a court that they have a legitimate reason to track your comings and goings.

Although this decision by a Wisconsin appeals court involved a GPS tracking device that the police secretly attached to a private citizen’s car, the broad reach of the decision and the logic on which it is based -- that using a technical device to track a vehicle is basically the same as visually trailing a person (at least for purposes of whether the person enjoys Fourth Amendment protection) – makes it easily applicable to GPS systems already installed in a vehicle. In fact, for GPS systems already installed, the courts probably will find it even easier to justify police monitoring because they don’t have to take the affirmative, somewhat invasive measure of attaching an external monitoring device.


April 23, 2009

The Real ID Act, mandating a national identification card, was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 and then signed by Republican President George W. Bush. Since its passage, and especially since the implementing rules were promulgated in January 2008, many governors – including Republican ones – have objected strenuously to the significant costs of completely overhauling their states’ drivers license systems to comply with Real ID. Many also have objected to the serious, privacy-invasive nature of the federal program. One of those governors objecting to the Real ID program was Janet Napolitano of Arizona, who now serves as President Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security. As Homeland Security chief, Ms. Napolitano is responsible for implementing and monitoring the program.

Recently, Secretary Napolitano stated that she will work in her new capacity to repeal the Real ID Act. This is a hopeful sign for those of us who have raised serious concerns about the law’s cost and privacy problems, although we’ll have to see if the Secretary is really serious about working to actually repeal the law and what she might propose in its stead.

The bottom line, however, is that from a privacy standpoint, Secretary Napolitano’s remarks against the Real ID Act are welcome news.


April 7, 2009

In a rare but welcome move supporting the privacy of a person’s medical records, the Georgia legislature decided in its final hours this session, NOT to adopt legislation (HB 614) that would have created a massive database of private, prescription records for every person in the entire state of Georgia for who a doctor prescribed any drug listed on the Controlled Substances Lists. Those lists contain hundreds of pharmaceuticals, including most pain medications and prescription sleep aids. Opposition to the Republican-led effort to create the massive and not-transparent database was led by State Senator Preston Smith, of Rome, Georgia.

March 23, 2009

The Obama Administration has argued in a federal court of appeals that the government should be able to force a cell phone company to disclose a customer’s private cell phone locator records, even without showing a court that the government has probable cause to believe the customer has committed or is committing a crime. The cell phone records at issue reveal where a cell phone user was located at the beginning and at the end of a cell phone call. A federal trial court in Philadelphia ruled earlier that the government should not be able to gain access to such private records without applying for and convincing a judge that the government had a valid reason for obtaining the private information; in other words, the government should be required to obtain a search warrant before gaining access to a person’s cell phone location records. The Obama Administration is continuing the same line of reasoning favored by the prior administration of George W. Bush.

March 17, 2009

Several municipalities, including in Gwinnett County, Georgia in suburban Atlanta, are moving to dismantle their red light cameras. While virtually every jurisdiction that has installed and operates the intrusive and constitutionally-problematic cameras has claimed it did so not for financial reasons but for safety, the recent economic downturn is causing some of those same jurisdictions to start taking the cameras down because they are no longer cost effective. In other words, because the cameras are not generating sufficient revenue to justify their continued use! For whatever reason, getting rid of these devices is a positive move.

March 12, 2009

Those of us who follow matters regarding civil liberties and the erosion of our right to privacy by the federal government have known for some time that the so-called “Terrorist Watch List” has grown far too large and intrusive. We now know this to be a fact. According to “official” federal data, released in response to requests from USA Today, the FBI has confirmed that the number of names on the list has now hit one million! Not only is this list bloated beyond any reasonable relationship to who might be a “terrorist,” but it continues to cause serious privacy and other practical problems for citizens who are on the list in error or whose names are on the list for no good reason. Also, it is not uncommon for airlines and entities that use the lists to deny people services (such as boarding a plane) not because their names are actually on the lists, but because their names are similar to names on the lists. Congress needs to hold hearings on this abuse and put a stop to the growth of this and other privacy-invasive lists and databases by the government.

February 23, 2009

The Obama Administration Transportation Secretary is advocating a plan to begin taxing all drivers in the country based not only on how much gas they pump into their vehicles (a per-gallon fuel tax), but on how many miles they drive their vehicle. Aside from the obvious economic drawback to such a plan (overall higher taxes), the plan has very serious ramifications for privacy. The government would compute how many miles a driver has driven between fuel purchases, by way of a computer chip that would be placed in the person’s car or truck. Of course, such a computer chip will provide the government not only information on how many miles a person has driven, but when they drove those miles, how fast they drove, and where they drive! Once this information is thus available to the government, it can be retrieved and used for data-basing, monitoring, and, of course, law-enforcement and other judicial purposes (as well as reachable by subpoena in civilian court proceedings).

February 18, 2009

The prior Bush Administration often employed a theretofore rarely used legal theory, called the “State Secrets Doctrine,” to deny citizens the ability to challenge improper government policies or activities in the courts. One such case involved allegations by five men that the prior administration directed private businesses to carry out the extraordinary rendition of the men to a foreign country where they were then tortured. When the alleged victims filed a lawsuit in federal court, the Bush Administration sought to have the lawsuit summarily dismissed based on the state secrets doctrine. In essence, when the government asserts this doctrine, it asks a federal court to throw out the entire lawsuit because, according to the government, allowing the case to proceed would cause national security harm to the government. Interestingly, however, the first time this so-called doctrine was employed in the early 1950s, it was discovered years later the reason the government sought to have the case dismissed was because facts that would have come out during the proceedings would simply have been embarrassing to the government. If a court accepts the government’s arguments, in proceedings to which the citizens are not privy, then they are effectively denied any opportunity to prove their case of alleged government wrongdoing and harm.

Now, despite campaign rhetoric that as president he would undo many of the secretive policies of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has formally adopted the same, state secrets doctrine in the case now before the federal Court of Appeals in California. If this policy continues with the new administration, then it will strengthen the federal government’s ability to deny citizens the ability to expose government misconduct and right wrongs done the citizens thereby.

February 3, 2009

Next time you see a garbage truck making its rounds in your neighborhood, you might want to think twice before doing something naughty if it might be witnessed by one of those garbage handlers. In a number of communities across the country, police agencies are actually training garbage truck drivers to spy on citizens and to report “suspicious” things they see to the police. Some of the nation’s largest waste collection companies, including Waste Management, reportedly have been participating in the spy program. Some police agencies encourage the snitch program because they get the benefit of people reporting “suspicious” activity to them, without having to pay them salaries or expenses. One might ask what is considered “suspicious” to a garbage handler, and what happens to all the information thus reported to the police?

April 2, 2008

D.C. officials have put cameras on light poles, police cars and government buildings. Now they're preparing to put them on street sweepers in the latest example of increasing surveillance of city residents. Scheduled street-cleaning service takes place weekly in every city ward except for Ward 3, and it is temporarily suspended during winter. Signs prohibit parking along curbs during a two-hour window while the service occurs, and violators caught by the cameras will receive a $30 citation in the mail. The cameras will cost roughly $40,000 each and will be placed on two street sweepers initially.

For more information, please visit Street-sweeper cameras eye illegal parking [Washington Times, April 2, 2008]



March 7, 2008

The FBI acknowledged yesterday that it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from attempts to track terrorists and spies. Just last month, the Administration pressured the Senate into passing legislation greatly expanding the power of the federal government to electronically surveil American citizens' international phone calls and e-mails without any supervision by the courts. Now, we have just learned more about privacy abuses by the FBI improperly accessing Americans' telephone records, credit reports, and other private information. This shows clearly why Congress should not grant this or any administration the absolute and unreviewable power to invade the privacy of the American citizenry. Such powers inevitably are abused.

For more information, please visit FBI admits more privacy abuses [Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2008]



February 29, 2008

The Homeland Security Department is testing technology that would allow its agents to use cellphones or e-mail devices to covertly share live video of possible terrorists over a law enforcement network. Department officials call the security surveillance system RealEyes because it instantly broadcasts images to anyone connected to the system. It can stream the video across the country to computers and give the law enforcement agencies a front-row view of what's going on in real time.

For more information, please visit Surveillance system raises privacy concerns [USA Today, February 29, 2008]



January 23, 2008

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity. The plan would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search. McConnell has been an advocate for computer-network defense, which has previously not been the province of any intelligence agency.

For more information, please visit US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search [The Raw Story, January 14, 2008]



January 10, 2008

As readers of this Privacy Watch know, last August the Administration scared Congress to pass a law (the Protect America Act) that subjected any international call or email to or from anyone here in the U.S. surreptitiously. While the Protect America Act is set to expire February 1, many Democrats in Congress seem poised to cave in again and grant the Administration a one year expansion of the unnecessary and dangerous law.

For more information, please visit White House, Congress eye new ways to keep key surveillance statute alive [Newsweek, January 9, 2008]



January 2, 2008

The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of people's physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify people in the United States and abroad. This month, the FBI will award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives. And in the coming years, law-enforcement authorities worldwide will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars, and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists. The FBI also will retain, upon request by employers, fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal-background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law. The increasing use of biometrics is raising questions about how Americans can avoid unwanted scrutiny.

For more information, please visit FBI amassing vast database of physical info to ID people [The Denver Post, December 25, 2007]




November 27, 2007

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in. Investigators from the local San Diego County District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the program, said the Supreme Court in 1971 allowed social workers to visit homes in New York to determine eligibility. The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, said the visits do not even constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment in part because people are free to turn away the investigators.

For more information, please visit Court Won't Review San Diego Home Hunts [Washington Post, November 26, 2007]



November 20, 2007

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms. The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.

For more information, please visit Police to Search for Guns in Homes [The Boston Globe, November 17, 2007]



November 14, 2007

Department of Defense(DOD)personnel involved in previous counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations may have violated Americans' civil liberties when reviewing their financial and other personal records. The department has issued 455 national security letters -- subpoenas that allow authorized government officials to examine, without court order, the personal data of American citizens suspected of involvement in espionage, terrorism, and other activities that threaten the security of the United States -- since the Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act in late 2001. More than half of these letters were issued since 2005.

For more information, please visit U.S. Military Counterintelligence Activities Raise Privacy Concerns [World Politics Review, October 31, 2007]



November 7, 2007

In a further blow to privacy, and in furthereance of the growing trend for governments to gather as much information on individuals and share it as widely as possible, the U.S. government has decided that American travelers' personal data would for the first time be exported to all European Union states by airline carriers flying to Europe under a proposal to be announced this week. The data, including names, telephone numbers, credit card information and travel itinerary, would be sent to EU member states so they could assess passenger risk for counterterrorism purposes, according to a draft copy obtained by The Washington Post. The European Commission proposal would allow the data to be kept for 13 years or longer if used in criminal investigations and intelligence operations. It would cover all passengers flying into and out of Europe, not just Americans. Airlines already share data with U.S. authorities on passengers entering the United States. A handful of countries, including Canada and Australia, have similar laws. The European proposal was apparently modeled after an agreement signed in July between the United States and Europe dealing with passenger data from European flights entering and leaving the United States.

For more information, please visit Travelers' Data Would Go To EU States [Chicago Tribune, November 3, 2007]



October 29, 2007

In an apparent about-face, New York Governor Elliot Spitzer has publicly endorsed the U. S. government's costly plan for a national identification card, called the 'Real ID Act.' While Gov. Spitzer just weeks ago indicated he would oppose the expensive and privacy-invasive federal program, he now appears to have embraced it.

For more information, please visit Governor Accused of Betraying Principles [NY Times, October 29, 2007]


October 19, 2007

The disclosure by Verizon Communications that it turned over tens of thousands of business and customers records to federal and state governments has raised renewed questions about the extent of government surveillance practices used to fight terrorism. Verizon, in an Oct. 12 letter to a panel from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said that from January 2005 to September 2007, it provided data to federal authorities on an emergency basis 720 times. The company also provided information a total of 94,000 times to federal authorities with a subpoena or court order, according to the letter. In addition to counterterrorism investigations, the requests also included a variety of criminal offenses.

For more information, please visit Verizon Disclosures Raise Renewed Questions On Phone Records, Privacy [CRN, October 19, 2007]


September 12, 2007

A federal judge struck down a key part of the USA Patriot Act last week in a ruling that defended the need for judicial oversight of laws and bashed Congress for passing a law that makes possible "far-reaching invasions of liberty." U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, allowing the government time to appeal. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We are reviewing the decision and considering our options at this time." The ruling handed the American Civil Liberties Union a major victory in its challenge of the post-Sept. 11 law that gave broader investigative powers to law enforcement. The ACLU had challenged the law on behalf of an Internet service provider, complaining that the law allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court supervision required for other government searches. Under the law, investigators can issue so-called national security letters to entities like Internet service providers and phone companies and demand customers' phone and Internet records.

For more information, please visit Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act [Yahoo! News, September 12, 2007]


September 11, 2007

California legislators have voted once again to derail security and privacy issues with checks on RFID technology, this time with a bill that will prohibit the forced implantation of an identification device—including RFID chips and so-called chipless, invisible RFID tattoos—under the skin. The bill, passed by the California Senate 28-9 on August 30, has until mid-September to be signed into law or vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Given California's size and political muscle, the bill could have an impact on radio-frequency identification legislation in other states. It also points to potential problems down the road for RFID. If this most recent bill becomes a law, California will join Wisconsin and North Dakota as states that have already banned forced RFID implementation.

For more information, please visit California Makes Another Run at RFID Regulation [eWeek.com, September 11, 2007]


August 8, 2007

The amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which the Administration pressured Congress into passing over the weekend represents an outrageous expansion of government power to surveil virtually every international telephone call or internet communication. The amendments go far beyond what the Administration said was necessary to listen into international communications involving suspected terrorists. The Administration’s efforts were successful because it shamelessly mischaracterized the FISA law and exaggerated the so-called threat in order to play on the fears of members of Congress.

For more information, please visit New FISA Controversial Amendments [CNN, August 8, 2007]


July 31, 2007

The FBI wants to set up a new National Security Analysis Center in order to keep all the information of all the different databases they collect on individuals and groups of individuals in one place, and the FBI has asked Congress for $12 million to do so. This new “center” is just another one of the FBI’s data-mining programs. The new FBI analysis team, also known as the bureau’s “proactive data exploitation unit” claims this new National Security Analysis Center would just look at people who are already considered suspects, and who are already listed in one of their many databases. Apparently the new program would make the FBI’s job easier by having a way to prioritize cases and see changes in a particular suspect’s behavior, and they claim they won’t abuse all the information that they collect.

For more information, please visit The privacy of Internet e-mail [UPI, June 20, 2007]


June 20, 2007

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that passengers of cars stopped by police have the same privacy protections as drivers, and that they may challenge the legality of the stop. The argument by California that only the driver was protected under the Fourth Amendment was discredited by the Justices in this historic decsion.

For more information, please visit Supreme Court Upholds Rights for Car Passengers [The New York Times, June 18, 2007]


June 12, 2007

Mayor Bloomberg has a plan in the works to tax those who travel into Manhattan by installing more than 1,000 cameras to photograph the license plates of vehicles.


For more information, please visit Road Congestion Cameras Assailed for Privacy Risk [The New York Sun, June 8, 2007]

June 8, 2007

New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, always on the prowl for more ways by which authorities can monitor residents of and visitors to the Big Apple, told a group of aerospace executives recently exactly what they wanted to hear. The Commish said the City was looking to deploy a number of ‘stationary airborne devices’ by which to monitor the City’s streets and inhabitants. The ‘airborne platforms,’ as Mr. Kelly referred to them, would provide all sorts of juicy information to the NYPD. The privacy problems with such a maneuver, however, would be monumental – not that this would cause a moment’s hesitation on the part of the City.

For more information, please see NY1 News, June 7, 2007 NYPD Looks To Expand Airborne Devices For Surveillance



Week of May 6, 2007

The newly confirmed Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, James Clapper Jr., recently stated his plans to end the Talon (Threat and Local Observation Notices) electronic data program. The program, which began in 2003, collects and compiles data about people and even organizations that have supposedly threatened the Defense Department. While this is a small victory, we and the Congress have to monitor it carefully to guard against the Pentagon from simply reconstituting it under another name, in another office, to do the same thing.

For more information, please visit Pentagon to End Talon Data-Gathering Program[The Washington Post, April 25, 2007]


Week of March 11, 2007

According to a report just released by the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI has been abusing powers in the 2001 USA Patriot Act. The FBI has reportedly used the powers far in excess of those intended by Congress when it passed the Patriot Act, and in some instances in direct violation of the law’s provisions.

For more information, please visit FBI criticized for Patriot Act use[The Associated Press, March 8, 2007]

Week of February 25, 2007

Not content with using surveillance cameras simply to monitor certain areas and record activity, the government is now working to develop cameras that monitor behavior and which can detect changes in the area they monitor. The cameras would then alert authorities. For example, a camera could alert law enforcement if a package or motor vehicle was placed or parked in a certain area or for a certain period of time. Also, the technology is being developed whereby cameras could be programmed to detect certain types of behavior, such as a particular gait or arm movement. Who says Big Brother isn’t alive and flourishing?

For more information, please visit Surveillance Cameras Get Smarter [The Associated Press, February 25, 2007]


Week of February 11, 2007

A federal judge in New York has ordered police to stop conducting surveillance of groups gathering in public places unless the police have some basis on which to believe there will be unlawful activity taking place.

For more information, please visit Judge Restricts New York Police Surveillance [New York Times, February 16, 2007]


Week of February 4, 2007

In one year, unless Congress or the states stop it, we will have, for the first time in our country's history, a national ID card, thanks to the federal Real ID Act. Thankfully, some states are waking to the dangers of this bad federal law and passing legislation opting out of the Real ID Act. We need to encourage them.

For more information, please visit Resistance rises to US law that requires stricter ID standards [Christian Science Monitor, February 9, 2007]



Week of January 28, 2007

This week, the Georgia House Study Committee on Biological Privacy, chaired by Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth), issued a report in favor of protecting the biological privacy of Georgians. Testimony was heard on the use of personal information such as fingerprints, genetic data and retinal scans, for identification, employment, life insurance, and a number of other purposes. The committee recommended that the use of biometric information with RFID chips and GPS tracking technologies be prohibited in the issuance of identification cards. Rep. Setzler further stated that he would be introducing legislation that would have a provision banning microchips. Hopefully Georgia’s Governor will support implementing legislation, and other states will follow suit.

For more information, please visit Implanted chip ban proposed[Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 31, 2007]

Week of November 26, 2006

Now the Feds will not only demand to see what's in your carry-on baggage - they want to see under your clothes! This month in Phoenix, the new wave in airport screening technology debuts. A "backscatter" machine which shows extremely clear images of bare bodies underneath clothing will greet travelers selected for enhanced security screening. The purpose of the new, full-body x-ray machine is to discover plastic or liquid explosives or ceramic knives on passengers that would not set off a metal detector. However, it is only a matter of time before TSA moves to use the highly privacy-invasive backscatter devices for all passengers. Similarly, as passengers will recall, the requirement to take off one’s shoes prior to going through the airport metal detector began as a “voluntary" step but soon morphed into a requirement.

For more information, please visit Phoenix test site for TSA X-ray[USA Today, December 1, 2006]


Week of October 15, 2006

Mereyside, a metropolitan county in northwestern England, has developed a specialized police force – the Anti-Social Behaviour Task Force – to monitor and “tackle” anti-social behavior. The head of the task force claims this is a cheap way of conducting surveillance for intelligence and evidence gathering; but it’s a high price to pay in loss of privacy.

For more information, please visit Police want spy planes to fight anti-social behaviour[Breitbart.com, October 15, 2006]


Week of October 8, 2006

Governments are now going after local bars as the latest locations to install surveillance cameras. A measure proposed by Milwaukee Alderman Bob Bauman, for example, would require the installation of security cameras inside and out of every such establishment within that city’s limits. The equipment would then be required to record color images that would be made available to any law enforcement agency that requested them. The system would cost each business thousands of dollars. Convenience stores have already fallen victim to this policy. The officials pushing this measure claim the cameras will deter crime, but they completely fail to address the substantial invasion of privacy the surveillance represents.

For more information, please visit Tavern camera mandate proposed [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 3, 2006]


Week of September 17, 2006

In yet another assault on the privacy of individuals' internet records, Attorney General Gonzalez on behalf of the Bush Administration, is pressuring internet service providers to record and maintain the full internet surfing details of their customers for up to two years. The Administration is seeking legislation to accomplish this goal by law. The government maintains this is necessary in order to fight child pornography, but the scope of the government's effort goes far beyond anything reasonably necessary to catch those engaged in child porn over the internet. Also, undoubtedly the government would seek access to the customers' records for all sorts of other purposes as well.

For more information, please visit Gonzales Wants ISPs to Save User Data
[Associated Press, September 20, 2006]


Week of September 1, 2006

The Federal Department of Education confirmed that the FBI conducted searches of millions of students' financial aid data without a warrant while seeking information suspected terrorists. The FBI did not indicate how the information was used or if it lead to the arrest or prosecution of the suspected terrorists targeted.

For more information, please visit FBI Had Student Data Searched[Information Week, September 1, 2006]


Week of August 27, 2006

The presence of "black boxes," or event data recorders, which record data in automobiles before, during and after an accident, will have to be made known to buyers according to the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NHTSA has recently approved rules which will require buyers be informed by automakers that their automobiles harbor a "black box." Notices will indicate such in the owner's manuals.

For more information, please visit New Regulation Requires Automakers To Disclose 'Black Boxes'[Information Week, August 25, 2006]


Week of August 13, 2006

So called Electronic Passports, which contain Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips, embedded in them, have recently been cloned by hackers. In an attempt to show how the e-passports can be compromised, a German computer security consultant demonstrated how easy it really is to copy the data in the RFID chips. The data can be read, copied and then put into a new tag producing a cloned passport. The U.S. plans to start issuing these flawed e-passports in October of this year. Privacy advocates strongly oppose the measure citing the easily manipulated technology and obvious security risks.

For more information, please visit Hackers Clone E-Passports [Wired News, August 3, 2006]


Week of July 31, 2006

A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a lawsuit against AT&T based on the so-called “state secrets privilege.” The lawsuit claimed AT&T had illegally disclosed private customer information to the NSA. This ruling, which is the opposite of a decision just a week before by another federal judge in San Francisco, gives the federal government the power to prevent citizens whose privacy has been violated by a telemarketing company operating at the behest of the government, to be accountable to those customers.

For more information, please visit Judge Rejects Customer Suit Over Records From AT&T [New York Times, July 26, 2006]


Week of June 11, 2006

The Supreme Court has declared police executing a warrant do not need to knock or announce their presence before entering a citizen’s private residence. Most disappointing is the fact that Justice Thomas, who had in the past strongly advocated in favor of police announcing their presence at the time they executed a warrant, sided with the majority in expanding police power in this case. This decision significantly erodes the fast-disappearing principle, deemed so important to our Founding Fathers that “a man’s home is his castle.”

For more information, please visit Court Limits Protection Against Improper Entry [New York Times, June 16, 2006]

Week of May 28, 2006

The Justice Department has now embarked upon yet another privacy intrusive activity geared toward forcing Internet companies to store the search data of its customers and maintain the records for up to two years. A task force has even been appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to mull over the issue. The Justice Department maintains that it will not demand information for all of the Internet companies’ users, but essentially wants to make sure that if they should ever want to subpoena the data, it would be available. Not only do they want your web-surfing activities recorded, the department may also want data that includes whom the users exchange e-mails (not the content of the emails).

For more information, please visit U.S. wants firms to save Web use data
[Chicago Tribune, June 2, 2006]


Week of May 21, 2006

The personal information of up to 26.5 million veterans was stolen from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who had not been authorized to take the data home. The stolen data includes the names, birthdates, and Social Security numbers of the veterans and some of their spouses. This may be the largest unauthorized disclosure of Social Security data and illustrates the low priority government places on safeguarding the privacy of sensitive personal information.

For more information, please visit Thieves Steal Personal Data of 26.5M Vets[Washington Post, May 23, 2006]

Week of May 14, 2006

In the latest discovery surrounding the unlawful domestic wiretapping of law-abiding American citizens in the name of national security, the compilation of tens of millions of American citizens phone records have been databased by the National Security Agency. The records were obtained from AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth without a warrant. The lack of Congressional oversight is troubling to privacy advocates as this is just the most recent development that has come to light. This clearly demonstrates the need for the checks and balances established by the Constitution to be revisited as the government continues to pull away from that principle which makes this country great.

For more information, please visit Bush says privacy protected; sources tell of 'spider web' use [USA Today, May 12, 2006]



Week of March 19, 2006

In a clear blow to police efforts to expand their power to conduct warrantless searches of one's home, the U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the freedom of a homeowner to refuse consent for police to search his home even though his spouse gave consent. The police can still search a home if they have probable cause to obtain a warrant or if there are exigent circumstances, but no longer can they conduct a search without a warrant simply because an angry spouse gives consent over the objections of the other.

For more information, please visit Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Homes [New York Times, March 22, 2006]

Week of March 12, 2006

The Massachusetts House of Representatives has taken bold and praiseworthy move to protect the privacy of its drivers, by passing legislation that will require auto manufacturers and dealers to notify buyers if their cars are equipped with a “black box,” also known as an event data recorder. The devices monitor and record various bits of data about the car’s and the driver’s performance, including the vehicle’s speed, whether seatbelts are being used, whether brakes have been engaged, and other data. This information can then be accessed by insurance companies, auto manufacturers and law enforcement. The bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature would ensure that vehicle owners know before they purchase a vehicle equipped with a “black box” that the device is attached; it also provides that the vehicle owner is the legal owner of the information recorded in the black box and that outside parties cannot access it without the owner’s consent or pursuant to a lawful court order.

For more information, please visit House passes driver privacy bill [Holbrook Sun, March 17, 2006]



Week of March 5, 2006

The FBI was tapping phone calls of American citizens in the United States in violation of long-standing federal law prohibiting such eavesdropping without court permission. Democrat and Republican lawmakers came together in a rare display of concern over such violations of Americans' privacy. However, under pressure from the Bush Adminstration, Republican lawmakers appear to have once again put partisanship ahead of constitutional concerns, and swept the matter under the rug.

For more information, please visit Eavesdropping deal bypasses courts, privacy concerns [USA Today, March 10, 2006]


Week of February 26, 2006

The recent events surround the National Security Agency’s domestic spying – more importantly the interception of electronic communications without search warrants – has come to the front burner. In yet another move to destroy the dwindling privacy rights of Americans, two federal judges in Florida have upheld the misuse of the USA Patriot Act. The nationwide-search provision in the law, which shouldn’t apply to garden variety federal cases – non-terrorism, that is – is now being used for precisely that purpose. Privacy advocates and civil libertarians oppose the provision because it essentially gives prosecutors the power to pick courts that are seen as more friendly to the government. This will continue to be a hot topic as the Patriot Act, which is now before Congress for renewal, will now be used to justify searches in non-terrorism cases by courts who rule favorably toward the government.

For more information, please visit Patriot Act E-Mail Searches Apply to Non-Terrorists, Judges Say [New York Sun, February 28, 2006]


Week of February 12, 2006

Moving the surveillance to a new and very personal level, an Ohio company, CityWatcher.com, has implanted half-inch long Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) chips in the arms of its employees. The private company provides cameras and Internet monitoring for high-crime areas in six cities, and cited security reasons for the implants. The chip transmits a signal that is “read” by a device outside the person’s body; the employees are then “allowed” to access restricted areas. Already in use in animals and in humans in some other countries such as Mexico and Europe, RFID tags have raised serious medical and security concerns; including concern that the chips can and will be “read” by persons or organizations the “holder” of the chips might not want to do so. Privacy experts also point out that the chip’s host has no way of knowing exactly what information is stored on the implant.

For more information, please visit Cincinnati company acknowledges implants in workers [The Associated Press, February 13, 2006]

Week of January 29, 2006

In an outrageous move, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is pushing to force thousands of businesses in the Windy City, which is fast-becoming known as "Surveillance City," to install surveillance cameras outside their businesses, to capture images for law enforcement of who might be walking around outside their stores and offices.

For more information, please visit Daley: Cameras will make us safer [The SunTimes, January 31, 2006]

Week of January 22, 2006

Three New Jersey grade schools have installed iris scanning technology. Parents of students, as well as teachers and staff will be forced to submit to having their eye scanned and databased, in order to gain access to the school or to get their children.

The Teacher-Parent Authorization Security System (T-PASS) was installed in October 2005, and has now become fully operational. The software digitally records any visitor entering the school. The project is funded by tax dollars - more than $369,000 - through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.

For more information, please visit Eye Scan Technology Comes to Schools [ABC News, January 25, 2006]

Week of January 15, 2006

The federal government is now spying on Americans using the information stored from searches they conduct while online. Google, unlike its competitors Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online, refused the recent efforts of the federal government to obtain private information regarding the sites visited by their consumers. The company does state that privacy is not the issue fueling the refusal, rather that its position is based on a legal question. Privacy Advocates feel that this latest endeavor by the federal government may set a precedent for more intrusive future demands.

For more information, please visit Google Refuses Demand for Search Information The Washington Post, January 20, 2006]

Week of January 8, 2006

New York will start collecting personal medical data on diabetics without permission, and without removing personal identifying information. In a new and frightening example of the growth of the "nanny state," New York City will begin collecting medical data on individual patients suffering from the chronic, non-contageous illness, diabetes, in order to track, monitor and treat the disease. The monitoring will be conducted without securing the permission of the patients, the information obtained will include all identifying information, and the data will not even be obtained from the patients' physicians, but rather from third-party laboratories.

For more information on this outrageous invasion of privacy, please visit New York City Starts To Monitor Diabetics [The Washington Post, January 11, 2006]

Week of December 25, 2005

Britain is set to become the first country in the world to monitor every move of every vehicle on its roads. A huge network of roadside cameras will record and database the movements of vehicles (and their license plates) in the United Kingdom. The reason? Authorities cite that it would be easier for them to hunt down drug-traffickers and other "most wanted" criminals. The centralized system could be up and running as soon as Spring 2006 – running the license plates it scans through its database and cross reference for criminals. The system will also be capable of tracking vehicles that do not meet environmental standards, have insurance, or a valid registration.

For further information, please visit Police to monitor car journeys across UK[The Scotsman, December 23, 2005]

Week of December 18, 2005

At the direction of the President, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been secretly spying on Americans over the past four years. The agency has reportedly gathered the telephone and internet communications of hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens. President Bush, in recent comments, defended the actions of the NSA and said spying on suspected terrorists without court orders was necessary to defend this country against future attacks. Members of both political parties have called for a congressional investigation. Such spying is prohibited by federal laws.

For further information, please visit Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks[The New York Times, December 17, 2005]

Week of December 4, 2005

The parts of the USA Patriot Act due to expire on December 31st, may be around for another four years. Necessary – yet modest - reforms to protect the privacy rights of American citizens are not included in the latest “compromise” reauthorization bill. Additional amendments to the Patriot Act (as previously adopted unanimously by the Senate), need to be included. Privacy advocacy groups are encouraging Congress to oppose the current Patriot Act reauthorization agreement. Concerns include FBI agents accessing library, firearm, and other business records, roving wiretaps, and National Security Letters (NSLs).

For further information, please visit Mixed Messages From Hill on Patriot Act Talks [The Washington Post, December 8, 2005]

Week of November 27, 2005

Domestic surveillance activity under the Defense Department has expanded again. It has established new agencies, increased personnel and pushed legislation to make exceptions for intelligence gathering regarding the Privacy Act. Under the proposed legislation, the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and other intelligence agencies would be allowed to share the private and personal information of American citizens. They would ultimately have access to the data and not be required to present proof that any terrorist act or crime was involved. This would essentially remove all oversight by Congress and the American people. Recent modifications to the bill require the approval of the national intelligence director for the sharing of the information, and that the Pentagon report to Congress. The continued expansion of domestic spying is a growing concern for privacy advocates.

For further information, please visit Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity [The Washington Post, November 27, 2005]

Week of October 30, 2005

The power of the FBI to conduct secret surveillance of our cell phones has been curtailed as a result of two recent federal court decisions. In separate cases, two federal judges ruled the FBI cannot secretly track cell phone user locations without first showing some evidence that a crime has been committed or is in the process of being committed. While some other federal courts have upheld the broader and more intrusive power sought by the FBI, these latest rulings are a welcome step toward limiting the unbridled powers claimed by the federal government in the wake of 9-11 to conduct secret surveillance of citizens and others without any suspicion they have committted any crimes.

For further information, please visit Judges deal FBI surveillance setback [United Press International, October 28, 2005]


Week of October 23, 2005

As a result of a lawsuit filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it has been revealed that since 2001, the FBI has dramatically increased the surveillance of persons in the United States, and has in fact done so in many instances without obtaining proper authorization, and in violation of required lawful procedures. For example, it is now known that the FBI conducted secret surveillance on some US residents for as long as a year and a half without providing proper oversight or documentation. In other instances, private e-mails have been intercepted without proper legal authorization, bank records likewise have been improperly obtained, and in some cases improper "physical searches" were conducted.

For further information, please visit FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations[The Washington Post, October 24, 2005]


Week of October 9, 2005

If Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and many of his fellow Senators and Representatives have their way, the federal government will soon start a massive database containing DNA data on perhaps millions of Americans. While the legislation Sen. Kyl is proposing appears to relate only to persons convicted of federal crimes, in fact it would force many Americans never convicted of any offense, to submit there genetic information to the government.

The legislation does this by requiring any person arrested for any federal offense (even, presumably misdemeanor or purely regulatory offenses) to submit a DNA sample that would be analyzed, categorized and retained indefinitely by the federal government and shared with any number of other governments in the U.S. and perhaps overseas.

Even persons arrested but never charged with a crime, or who have had the charges dismissed or who have been found not guilty of the charges, would be subject to forced DNA submission. This outrageous invasion of privacy follows a similar change in California’s law last year; a move championed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Sen. Kyl is attempting to have his DNA Database legislation adopted by sneaking it into an unrelated piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197).

For further information, please visit Bill would expand U.S. DNA database [USA Today, October 2, 2005]


Week of October 2, 2005

In order to protect confidential business records containing private information on individual citizens from the government’s prying eyes -- a power greatly expanded by the USA Patriot Act -- several business organizations have banded together and endorsed proposed amendments that would limit parts of the 2001 law. Government agents would be required to establish at least that the private information the government seeks is reasonably suspected to be connected to a foreign power or terrorist organization, or to a suspected terrorist; a requirement the government is not now required to satisfy.

The reforms would also allow businesses to challenge the demands in courts and speak publicly about them, as opposed to the permanent "gag" orders under which businesses served with Patriot Act orders or warrants are now subject. These modest, proposed changes to the Patriot Act are necessary to ensure that the civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens are not diminished. While the changes address only a few of the problematic provisions in the Patriot Act, they at least represent an effort to bring constitutional balance to the Act; something the House version of the legislation does not do.

For further information, please visit Business groups seek changes to Patriot Act [The Seattle Times, October 6, 2005]

Week of September 25, 2005

Proceedings in a federal court case in New York have revealed that the Department of Justice has been employing taps of cell phones without any evidence of suspected criminal activity. For additional information, see:

Privacy Advocates Attack Cell-phone Surveillance [New Standard News, September 28, 2005]

Week of September 18, 2005

As part of America's overreaction to the threat of terrorist attacks, yet another step toward a total surveillance society is being taken by some airlines. JetBlue among others, is now installing video surveillance cameras in the passenger cabins of its airliners. Of course, this latest loss of privacy -- even as you snooze or cuddle with your wife while en route from Atlanta to New York -- is brought to you courtesy of your tax dollars. Federal grants are being used to buy the cameras.

For further information, please visit JetBlue, Sun Country install cameras for pilots [The Washington Times, September 1, 2005]

Week of August 28, 2005

Once again, federal government agencies engaging in massive data-mining of information on American citizens, have flunked privacy tests "required" by federal law. Agencies including the FBI and the IRS have been shown in a study conducted by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), to have ignored privacy requirements supposedly mandated by federal law. Similar to the conduct of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which also has been shown to violate federal privacy requirements, this latest scandal proves once again the government cannot be trusted to protect privacy rights of American citizens, even when required by law to do so.

For further information, please visit GAO Data Mining Report [Government Accountability Office, August 2005] and Data Mining Found to Flunk Privacy Rules [San Francisco Chronicle , August 29, 2005]

Week of August 14, 2005
Florida may become the first state to issue “digital birth certificates,” if they accept a proposal by the defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Gov. Jeb Bush recently signed legislation containing a provision requiring state officials to develop a biometrically-based "unique personal identifier;" ostensibly to recognize individuals in court cases, but which inevitably would be used for all sorts of other purposes. This represents a frightening expansion of government’s constant effort to reduce individual privacy and enhance government’s ability to track people.

For further information, please visit 'Digital birth ID' stirs privacy debate, August 13, 2005]



Week of August 7, 2005

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that commercial interception of private e-mails could be considered illegal, and reinstated the 2001 indictment of Interloc Inc., an email provider, for violating federal wiretap laws. The company had been intercepting the email of its employees; the case had previously been dismissed on a 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel of the court in June 2004.

For further information, please visit Court rules e-mail may get privacy protection,[The Boston Herald, August 12, 2005]


Week of July 31, 2005

Legislation is pending in the U.S. House that would establish a privacy officer in the Department of Justice. While this is a welcome step toward restoring some priority to the importance of privacy in federal policies, the fact that the privacy office as proposed in the Department of Justice Appropriations Bill has no subpoena power or any real enforcement power, will mean its impact will likely be diminished.

For further information, please visit Justice may get privacy officer, more data-sharing,[Government Computer News, August 1, 2005]

Week of July 24, 2005

By collecting the personal data of 250,000 law-abiding American citizens to field test the newest of the Transportation Security Administration’s programs, Secure Flight, the Privacy Act was clearly violated once again by the bureaucratic agency. The Government Accountability Office recently released a report which gives credibility to the concerns of privacy advocates by stating that "a TSA contractor, acting on behalf of the agency, collected more than 100 million commercial data records containing personal information such as name, date of birth, and telephone number without informing the public." With the growing number of incidents of identity theft and mishandling of personal data by contractors that market this information to agencies such as TSA for Secure Flight, there is most certainly a real threat to the privacy rights of all Americans.

For further information, please visit TSA's Privacy Law Violations May Lead to More Abuses,[ConsumerAffairs.com, July, 28, 2005]


Week of July 19, 2005
The House of Representatives, in voting July 21st to revise and reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, could have done the right thing and placed modest limitations on the ability of the government to gather evidence on Americans not suspected of any criminal or terrorist activity. It could thereby have brought important constitutional checks and balances back to the government’s fight against acts of terrorism. The House failed to do so. The venue for our fight to restore constitutional balance back to the Patriot Act, and protect the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens, now shifts to the Senate, where improved legislation is currently pending.

For more information, please see House Beats Back Challenges to Patriot Act [The New York Times, July 22, 2005]

Week of July 10, 2005

Although federal support of the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, also known as MATRIX, ended in April, a few states, namely Florida, Ohio, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, still insist on keeping it. The database-searching software essentially collects and compiles the personal information of law-abiding citizens from several sources, including insurance, financial, property and business records. Florida law enforcement is also seeking to expand MATRIX – looking for companies that can help put together an even bigger collection of information. The plan is to ultimately create a database through which states can cross-reference and share information on American citizens, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they “may” do something wrong in the future. Four of the original 13 states that had signed onto the program pulled out previously, and the federal funding has dried up, but this program just won’t go away. It may get a fancy new name, but once something like the MATRIX comes about, as with just about all government programs, they never truly go away.

For more information, please see Hate by privacy advocates, database search engine lives on [The Miami Herald, July 10, 2005]

Week of June 26, 2005

The Pentagon’s hands were slapped a couple of years ago, when the Congress told it to cease building the Total Information Awareness (TIA) database on U.S. citizens, ostensibly to somehow then identify terrorists. Word is now out the Defense Department is building yet another massive database of information on law-abiding U.S. citizens. Supposedly to help bolster its sagging recruitment numbers, the Pentagon is now compiling a database on all college students and high school students between the ages of 16 to18. It will include information such as birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and courses of study. A marketing firm by the name of BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Massachusetts will manage the database. With so many other database building companies losing information or their systems being hacked, the mismanagement of personal data is a hot topic and the potential risks of this data being misused is most definitely a privacy concern. The data will be collected from multiple sources which include commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and others, along with information already provided to the military. A person can “opt out,” however; they must submit detailed personal information which is then said to be placed in a “suppression file.” Which brings this point to light – the Defense Department will get the personal information – whether it is given to them or they have to get it themselves. The Defense Department should focus on defending our country, not on compiling electronic dossiers on millions of law-abiding citizens.

For more information, please see Pentagon Creating Student Database: Recruiting Tool For Military Raises Privacy Concerns[The Washington Post, June 23, 2005]


Week of June 19, 2005

Although Congress prohibited the collection of secret data files on U.S. airline passengers, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has now been shown to be doing just that -- compiling massive amounts of private information on all U.S. citizens who flew commercially during the month of June 2004, as part of a new data-mining, passenger profiling system dubbed “SecureFlight.” Information collected by the TSA in contravention of congressional mandate, and in conjunction with commercial data collectors, includes travelers' names, addresses, credit card numbers, travel itineraries and meal requests, and possibly a passenger's religion.

For more information, please see TSA's passenger files violate privacy rules [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 21, 2005]

Week of June 12, 2005
The insatiable appetite by government at all levels to demand and accumulate biometric identifying information has now reached local libraries. The public library in Naperville, Illinois, will now be requiring patrons – including children – to register their fingerprints in order to get access to the town library.

For more information, please see Want to use the Web? Your fingerprint, please,[The Christian Science Monitor, June 02, 2005]

Week of May 30, 2005

If the H.R. 1528, the "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," makes it into law, the practice of spying on your relatives, neighbors and friends may be forced upon you. This legislation; recently introduced and pending before the Judiciary Committee, could make every American an informant in the war on drugs, essentially compelling them to snitch or risk imprisonment for two to ten years.

For more information, please see Spy vs. Spy,”[Alternet.org, May 18, 2005] and Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 (Introduced in House),”[Thomas, April 22, 2005]


Week of May 22, 2005

The loss of sovereignty is continuing for the United States as we merge into a global era of expanded Big Brother initiatives. The U.S. will have a defacto National ID card by 2008 as a result of the recently-enacted “Real ID” Act. Now, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security is working to ensure our National ID database will be compatible with Britain’s. In effect, this will create an International ID all U.S. citizens will be forced to carry. For more information, please see US wants to be able to access Britons' ID cards,”[The Independent, May 27, 2005]


Week of May 15, 2005

Even as concerned citizens from across the ideological spectrum are working to bring a few modest but much-needed amendments to the USA Patriot Act, the Administration and some of its allies in the Senate are working to expand the powers granted to federal law enforcement even beyond the significant powers it gained in the original 2001 Act. For example, under the proposal now being considered in secret by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI, on its own without going before any federal judge at any time, would be able to demand access to a broad range of private information on law-abiding citizens, without any showing that the citizens had violated any law or were acting on behalf of a foreign power. This power could extend, for example, to personal medical information, business records, library records, educational records, and firearms purchase records. For more information on this chilling development, please see
Fingerprint Plan Would Broaden F.B.I.'s Terror Role,”[New York Times, May 19, 2005] and GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush,”[The Associated Press, May 18, 2005]

Week of May 8, 2005

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law, Monday, May 9, HB 577, which will prohibit the requirement of fingerprinting and similar identification of applicants for drivers´ licenses, identification cards, and identification cards for persons with disabilities issued by the department. The bill, primarily sponsored by Rep. Barry Loudermilk and Sen. Chip Rogers, also calls for the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles to destroy all records of fingerprints obtained on and after April 15, 1996 from applicants. The department will also compile and make available for public inspection a list of all persons or entities to whom the department provided such fingerprint records. Electronically stored fingerprint images on existing drivers´ licenses will be destroyed upon application for a renewal of the driver's license. The law will go into effect July 1, 2006.

For further information, please visit Fingerprint Bill Deserves Perdue's OK,”[Atanta-Journal Constitution, May 4, 2005]

Week of May 1, 2005

Reflecting 'Bob Barr's Laws of the Universe' that 'no matter how much private information the government has, it always wants more,' the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is now implementing a plan to have airlines ask air travelers for more information, including their full, legal name and date of birth before allowing them to purchase a ticket. While this plan is being billed as 'voluntary,' the TSA warns that those passengers who balk at providing all the information requested, will increase their chances of being subject to additional questioning, scrutiny and searches, and may find their names on lists for future scrutiny. This plan is part of the federal agency's drive to implement SecureFlight, a new data-mining and screening program that succeeds the discredited 'CAPPS II' system the Congress abolished because of privacy and efficiency concerns last year.

[For more information, U.S. asks for more data on travelers: Full names, birth dates sought to screen fliers,”[USA Today, May 3, 2005]


Week of April 24, 2005

California law enforcement officials and some legislators in that state are pressuring the state's transportation officials to break a promise that freeway cameras used to monitor traffic flow would not be turned into recording devices. The law enforcement offials, eager to have the many cameras retrofitted with recording capability and the films then turned over to the government to be used to nab suspects and help solve crimes, are turning to state legislators for help. The California transportation agency responsible for maintaining the cameras, which do not record images but merely help monitor traffic flow in real time, thus far has resisted calls to break its promise that the cameras would not be turned into evidence-recording, privacy-invasive devices. However, the pressure to cave in and "help solve crimes" is mounting.

This is the "slippery slope" about which we have been warning for quite some time, as other states as well are coming under increasing pressure to install and use recording surveillance cameras on roadways and elsewhere.

[For more information, Privacy concerns disputed: Officials urge Caltrans to foil shootings by using recording,”[Presstelegram.com, April 26, 2005]


Week of April 17, 2005

Due to lack of funding, the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) is partially shutting down; however, it may still exist at the state level around the country. Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Connecticut are the only remaining participants left from the original thirteen states that started the project. A number of other states, including Georgia, dropped out of the program because of expense and privacy concerns; concerns similar to those expressed by many outside groups. This privately owned program which compiles personal data on American citizens through means of public and private sources will no longer be federally funded by the Department of Homeland Security. The database is suspected to include a wide array of information including current and past addresses and phone numbers, arrest records, real estate information, automobile information, marriage and divorce records and voter registration records, and hunting and fishing licenses.

[For more information, "Controversial terror database Matrix shuts down," Associated Press, April 18, 2005;"Controversial MATRIX Database Project Loses Funding," New Standard News, April 18, 2005; "ACLU applauds end of 'Matrix' info-sharing," United Press International.]


Week of April 10, 2005
In a move that will teach students early on the "value" of snitching on fellow citizens, at least two Georgia schools--Model H.S. In Rome and the Houston County school system--are preparing to implement programs to give money rewards to students who snitch on their fellow students. While not a widespread practice, apparently the availability of--you guessed it--federal tax dollars, is spuring some Georgia schools to consider the unsavory program of developing a cadre of paid informants in their classrooms.

[For further information, see Houston BOE OKs Student CrimeStoppers program,”[The Macon Telegraph April 13, 2005]
and School to pay informants,”[Atlanta Journal-Constitution April 11, 2005].


Week of April 3, 2005

The US Government is setting plans in motion to place RFID chips US passports. While advocates tout this move as a way to improve immigration security and efficiency, it actually poses serious security threats to Americans. The problem is that the small chips can be detected by terrorists or others wishing to harm Americans, using relatively cheap and unsophiticated equipment, thereby identifying Americans to them, just as if they were wearing signs around their necks. This is another reason to oppose those seeking to have RFID chips embedded in drivers licenses and other instruments.

For more information, see High-tech passports coming; complaints already in,”[USA Today April 4, 2005].
and Privacy Advocates Criticize Plan To Embed ID Chips in Passports ,”[Washington Post April 3, 2005].

Week of March 27, 2005

So-called "Black Boxes," or small computers or computer chips, are being used increasingly by automobile manufacturers, police, insurance companies, and others, to gather evidence of speed, braking, even seat-belt useage by owners and drivers of cars and trucks. All this is being done largely without the knowledge, much less the consent, of the vehicle owner or driver. At least one state -- California -- requires automobile dealers and rental companies to inform customers if the vehicles they buy or rent contain the "electronic back seat drivers," but most states do not. A legislator in South Dakota is seeking to change that, by passing legislation that would require dealers in that state to at least inform a potential buyer that the vehicles contains a Black Box so they can make informed decisions whether they wish to have such an electronic nanny in their car.

For more on this story, see "N.D. Debates Black Box Privacy Safeguards," by James Warden, AP Writer, in Newsday.com, March 25, 2005.


Week of March 13, 2005

As part of a new 'anti-terrorism' bill in Ohio, any law-abiding American citizen in that state will be subject to criminal prosecution even if he or she has committed no crime and is not even suspected of one, if they simply don't want to give the police their name, address and date of birth. Police will now be able to demand such information of any person if they think the person might have 'witnessed' a crime or because the person merely has the misfortune of having to go through a police roadblock set up just to check people.

For more information, see Ohio Senate OKs revised anti-terrorism bill, 32-0,”[prisonplanet.com March 11, 2005].


Week of March 6, 2005

In their never-ending search for ways in which to take more money from citizens, some local governments are now sending police driving around, taking infrared photographs of citizens’ license plates, running the data into computers, finding out who might not have paid their vehicle taxes, and then sending out armed marshals to take their cars away. Money-hungry local governments in Connecticut and Virginia are using such techniques, but their use is sure to spread unless citizens aggressively object to such privacy-invasive, heavy-handed measures.

[For more information, see “You owe? Prepare for a tow,” Associated Press, March 6, 2005.]

Week of February 27, 2005

In a rare show of reason, the Brittain Elementary School in Sutter, California, has scuttled plans to tag all students with RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips. As with other such programs, however, the school will almost certainly attempt to implement the proposed RFID plan at another time or by calling it something else. Some parents will continue monitoring the situation.

[Atlanta Journal and Constitution, February 20, 2005]


Week of February 20, 2005
In a major blow to government surveillance, Virginia has scuttled a 10-year old plan that placed surveillance cameras on roadways in several northern Virginia counties and cities. Citing privacy concerns as the primary reason for the action, the sponsors of the legislation said the revenues generated by the tickets issued as a result of photographs taken by the cameras could not be used to continue justifying the loss of privacy they represented.

[“Traffic cameras coming down,” Washington Times, February 19, 2005]

Week of February 13, 2005
Students at California’s Brittan Elementary School near Yuba City are now going to be tracked electronically, thanks to a decision by the school to require each student to wear a badge around their neck, and each badge will have an embedded RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chip in it. The students will be scanned when they enter classrooms and the data thus obtained will be transmitted to a teacher’s handheld computer. Did the school notify the parents and ask them if they wanted their little darlings subject to such electronic scanning? Of course not. This "Big Brother" program was instituted without parental consent or knowledge. This is but the latest move toward a privacy-free society, in which government agencies can track people remotely and surreptitiously through the use of devices such as RFID chips.

For more information, see Student ID tags raise parent ire,”[Contra Costa Times February 13, 2005].

Week of February 6, 2005

Whether it’s in furthereance of the government’s anti-smoking initiative, or whether the governemnt really believes that al Qaeda's new weapon of choice is a book of matches, the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is set to ban all matches and lighters from passsengers' pockets and carry ons aboard commercial aircraft. If the TSA has its way, it seems that soon we won’t be able to take anything on commercial airliners.

For more information, see TSA Considers Banning Lighters Aboard Planes," [HawaiiChannel.com, February 6, 2005].

A New Federal Law Could Mean More Carry-on Items Seized at Airports," [35 WSEE, February 8, 2005].



Week of January 31, 2005

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue is proactively advocating legislation that would protect cell phone users from having their privacy diminished by non-consensual wireless phone directories. Hopefully, this effort will succeed in Georgia, and serve as a model for privacy advocates and government leaders in other states.

For further information, please see, Press Release, issued by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, January 24th 2005, entitled Wireless Privacy Act to Protect Georgian's Cell Phone Numbers. Also, Georgia governor announces Wireless Privacy Act, Atlanta Business Chronicle, January 24th 2005.

Week of January 24, 2005

In California, you will not even be able to enjoy your privacy after you're dead! State officials at UCLA reportedly are set to require that RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips be implanted into cadavers, so the bodies can be more efficiently and easily tracked. This bizarre, final loss of privacy, is coming about because officials at the mega-university have been unable to properly account for cadavers willed to the school. Instead of doing a better job of policiing the university's facilities and personnel, UCLA, which is run by the state of California, may now start implanting the identifier chips in the dead bodies.

As with many other ludicrous 'trends,' the action being considered by California may now spread to other states. Already, RFID chips are being employed to monitor commercial products, library books, pets, and -- at least in Europe -- elderly persons and children. Passports issued to U.S. citizens will soon reportedly include RFID chips imbedded therein, as may driver's licenses which, thanks to a law recently signed by President Bush, will soon be subject to federal -- national -- standards. Items with RFID chips imbedded therein can be tracked remotely, unbeknownst to the person "carrying" the chip.

[For more information, see "Steps listed to protect cadavers," Washington Times, January 21, 2005]

Week of December 5, 2004

In all the hooplah surrounding passage by both houses of the Congress of the 9/11 legislation, which would dramatically restructure our foreign intelligence apparatus, virtually no public attention was paid to provisions in the legislation that would for the first time in our history create a national identification card set to federal government standards. The legislation clearly comtemplates that the federally-mandated driver's licenses will include biometric identifiers and possibly an RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) chip. Under the legislation, the federal government will also have the power to set standards for birth certificates, including who can obtain a copy of a birth certificate (such a a parent of a child) and under what circumstances.

Week of November 15, 2004

The National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency manned by un-elected bureaucrats, is moving to require 'Black Boxes' be installed in all cars built in the US. The 'Black Boxes,' formally known as 'Electronic Data Recorders' (EDRs), record information and can then be used to surreptitiously discover or replay the speed at which a car is being or has been driven, as well as much other information. Already, such devices have been used to convict persons of driving offenses and as evidence in civil lawsuits. Many GM and Ford cars already contain the devices, but the federal agency now wants to require the devices to be installed in all new cars manufactured in the US whether the consumer agrees or not."

For more information, see Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes," [Friday September 10th 2004, FOXNEWS].


Week of October 18, 2004

A federal court of appeals panel in Atlanta recently dealt a severe blow to the government's ability to use the vague notion of a 'terrorist threat' to limit constitutionally-guaranteed rights. The case involved protestors at Ft. Benning, Georgia, who annually gather in large numbers to peacably protest the School of the Americas. The government had sought to limit their ability to protest, by forcing each of the 15,000 or so protestors to go through a metal detector, even though there was never any evidence that weapons were present to that violence was planned.

The court said that in order for the government to legitimately limit the exercise of constitutional rights, it had to show some reason to believe there was a threat, and it could not rely on generalized, vague recitals of 'threat levels.

For more information, see More Terrorism fears not sufficient reason to search protesters, appellate court rules



Week of October 11, 2004

The state of California, by way of a proposed voter initiative on the November 2d ballot ("Proposition 69"), is poised to vastly expand the data base containing DNA information. California and many other states already require the collection and retention of DNA samples for persons convicted of serious criminal offenses; this is apporpriate. However, if the state adopts Proposition 69 next month, it will begin forced collection of DNA samples on every single person in the state who is arrested -- not convicted, but merely arrested -- for any felony. This DNA information would remain with the state, and subject to sharing with other states, the federal government, and private companies, regardless of whether the person is eventually found not guilty, or the state drops the charges, or it is determines the sample was collected in error. And there is no effective way for a person to have the DNA information expunged in such circumstances. This is an overly broad and highly privacy-invasive program that, if adopted by California, will likely spread to other states.

For more information, see More DNA collections advocated



Week of October 4, 2004

A federal court in New York has found one of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act to be unconsitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the power granted the FBI in the 2001 Patriot Act to demand private customer records from communications companies such as internet service providers, and which prohibited the recipient of the order from disclosing the order to anyone, including a lawyer even in order to question it, violated the Bill of Rights. Even though the U.S. Justice Department has indicated it will appeal the judge's ruling, this case represents an important victory for the privacy rights of American citizens and companies.

For more information, see Judge Strikes Down Section of Patriot Act


Week of September 27, 2004

Just two months after Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge declared the discredited and privacy-invasive "CAPPS II" program dead, it is being revived under a different name -- "Secure Flight." The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, has just announced it has "ordered" US airlines to turn over all of their passenger records for June 2004 (millions of records on law-abiding citizens) so it can begin testing the new system. As I wrote back in July, "while the name 'CAPPS II' may no longer be 'operative,' rest assured, a program doing what it was supposed to do will survive." I'm sorry to say, I was right. The federal government's love affair with developing data bases of information on law abiding citizens who simply chose to exercise their right to travel, appears to be a certainty, right up there with death and taxes.

For more information, see U.S. Orders airlines to release fliers' data


Week of September 19, 2004

Sens. McCain and Lieberman Push National ID

The drive by politicians in Washington to institute a national identification card continues. The latest move is by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman. They have introduced legislation tracking the language from the 911 Commission Report recommending implementation of a standardized, national driver's license, which would in fact be a national ID card. Once again, John McCain has shown himself a big-government Republican. Even though the recently-adopted Republican Platform contained explicit language that the GOP opposes a national identification card, the Arizona Senator is doing precisely that. Not only do these two Senators favor a national id card, but also the implementation of a series of highway checkpoints across the country to ensure everyone has their proper papers. "Your papers please, citizen!" should become McCain's slogan if he runs for President in 2008.

For more information, see Privacy Villain of the Week:McCain/Lieberman, et alia, by James Plummer

Week of September 12, 2004

Democrat Mayor Richard Daley has unveiled a plan to use millions of dollars in federal Homeland Security grant monies to install thousands of surveillance cameras throught the Windy City. The cameras would be networked with each other, and with existing cameras at existing locations, such as those at O'Hare International Airport.

The system is planned to be completed in 2006, and will make Chicago the most surveilled, and privacy-free city in America.

F.C.C. Chicago mayor outlines elaborate camera network



Week of August 2, 2004

A unanimous vote of the Federal Communications Commission subjected VoIP, "Voice over Internet Protocol" providers and "push to talk" services like the popular Nextel service, to be subject to federal legislation requiring the devices to incorporate technology so the government can eavesdrop on communications using the devices. In other words, so the government can use them for spying on us.

The decision is final on the "push to talk" technology, but the VoIP decision is still open for comment with the FCC. For additional information on this decision read the NY Times article,

F.C.C. Supports Surveillance Rules on Internet Calls


Week of July 26, 2004

While much of the attention surrounding the report of the 9-11 Commission has focussed on issues relating to the CIA and restructuring our foreign intelligence system, the report also contains a number of proposals with important privacy raminfications. For example, the report calls for a national identification card. Similar to a proposal passed by the Congress several years ago -- and then repealed before it could take effect -- the 9-11 Commission report does not call for a "national identification card" per se. Recognizing the public outcry that would ensue if it called explicitly for a national identification card, with its spectre of a totalitarian police state, the Commission instead calls for "secure identification standards," for drivers licenses and birth certificates. This is, however, nothing more than a thinly-veiled proposal for a national identification card, and it ought to be resisted just as vigorously as we did several years ago when the Clinton Administration attempted to implement a similar proposal.

"Final Report of the 9/11 Commission" at FindLaw.com, July 22, 2004



Week of July 12, 2004

In a major victory for those of us concerned about privacy and protecting our civil liberties against becoming casualties in the fight against acts of terrorism, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has announced that the controversial airline passenger profiling system, commonly know by its acronym "CAPPS II," was no longer being pursued. The plan would have set up a massive data base on everyone who wanted to travel by air within, into, or out of the United States, and then assigned each prospective air traveler a color code (red, yellow or green).

Rather than developing a government-run data base to profile law-abiding citizens, we ought to be concentrating on simply ensuring no weapons or explosives are brought onto planes, and focusing on known and suspected terrorists and their associates. Yet here we are nearly three years after 9-11, and we still don't have such a comprehensive, government-wide, up-to-date intelligence data base on the terrorists. The CAPPS II program would have done very little to identify terrorists, and would have set a dangerous precedent in terms of gathering evidence on law-abiding citizens in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Our task now is to ensure CAPPS II is not -- like so many other government programs -- resurrected under another name and implemented notwithstanding Secretary Ridge's announcement of its demise.

"Plan to collect flier data canceled," in USA TODAY, July 14, 2004


Week of June 28, 2004

The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that would require federal agencies to assess and publicly report on the effect proposed regulations would have on the privacy of individual citizens. The legislation now goes to the full House, hopefully for a vote before the end of this session in the fall. The bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the last Congress. It is being championed in this Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio, as H.R. 338. It is a modest piece of legislation, but it is at least a small step in support of privacy rights.

Privacy Impact Measure Wins Approval in House Judiciary
By Seth Stern, CQ Staff
June 24, 2004

Federal agencies would have to evaluate the effect of new regulations on individuals’ privacy under legislation approved Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

The measure (HR 338), approved by voice vote, would require agencies to issue a “privacy impact analysis” with notices of proposed rule-making and with final rules.

Versions of the bill, championed for years by lawmakers such as current sponsor Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, and former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr (1995-2003), are based on concerns that there are few curbs on the federal government’s use of personal information.

The committee approved by voice vote an amendment offered by Chris Cannon, R-Utah, that would permit a waiver in emergency situations justified by a need to protect national security or law enforcement investigations. The amendment also incorporated technical changes suggested by witnesses who testified at an oversight hearing about the privacy office established in the Department of Homeland Security, the first at a federal agency.

Cannon said the bill is a “modest” but important step in balancing “law enforcement needs . . . with the need to protect the rights of citizens from potentially unwarranted intrusions.” He pointed out that agencies conduct similar privacy impact analyses as required by the E-Government Act of 2002 (PL 107-347) when procuring or developing information technology.

Chabot has said the bill would force the federal government to consider legitimate privacy concerns as a part of the rule-making process. The legislation is backed by a broad coalition of supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. “Privacy should not be a partisan issue, it’s an intrinsic American value,” Chabot said.

The legislation, a version of which passed the House in the 107th Congress but went no further, also would require federal agencies to periodically consider whether a rule is necessary and whether it could be amended to minimize its effect on privacy.


Week of June 21, 2004

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can force a person to give them their name, even if the person has not committed a crime and even if the police have no reasonable basis on which to detain the person. This anti-privacy, 5 to 4 decision will have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment and other constitutional liberties.”

Give name or go to jail

Week of June 14, 2004

The Massachusetts Transit Police has announced plans to begin arbitrary, random searches of citizens wishing to ride on subway and commuter trains. The searches will be conducted on citizens even though there is no suspicion at all they pose a danger or have done anything suspicious. The reason and authority the Transit Police give for conducting these random and arbitrary searches, is that "subway and commuter rail operations are possible targets" of terrorists. The problem here is, that anything is a possible target for terrorist, and therefore, according to the logic of this police agency, they could search anybody, anytime, anywhere, for no reason whatsoever, because anything is a possible target of a terrorist attack. This newly announced policy is breathtaking in its socpe, and clearly violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. If it is replicated elsewhere, it will signal the virtual death of the Fourth Amendment.

The Boston Globe
T to check packages, bags at random
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
June 8, 2004

Next month, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority will become the first transit agency in the nation to institute a permanent policy of randomly inspecting passenger bags and packages on subway and commuter trains, MBTA police officials disclosed yesterday.

The stop-and-search procedure, largely prompted by the March 11 train bombings that killed 191 people in Spain, will involve explosive-sniffing dogs and all 247 uniformed MBTA police officers, and is set to be in place for July's Democratic National Convention, MBTA T Police Chief Joseph Cartercq told the Globe.

"I have no trepidation about being first,'' Carter said. "I don't want to be the first to do an interview about having a serious incident that may have some terrorist indications to it. I want to be in a position to prevent and detect and apprehend someone prior to them causing damage. We want to do this to encourage people to feel safe on the MBTA, to utilize public transportation.''

The policy was made public only weeks after the MBTA announced a controversial decision to begin requesting identification from T passengers police perceive as acting ``suspiciously.''

Since the Madrid bombings, which were allegedly carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists who concealed explosives in their backpacks, counterterrorism agencies across the globe have concluded that subway and commuter rail operations are possible targets. In London, police reacted to the bombings by issuing new security guidelines that allow officers to stop and search passengers and their bags if riders are acting suspiciously.

Last month, the US Transportation Security Administration unveiled a pilot program to screen the bags of all passengers at a single Maryland Rail Commuter station in suburban New Carrollton.

But the MBTA policy would be far more ambitious -- and in the eyes of civil libertarians, far more invasive -- as police conduct random inspections of bags and briefcases that are not tied to suspicious behavior. The policy is being developed in coordination with the TSA and with several other transit agencies in the United States and abroad, Carter said. It is not yet fully developed, he added.

MBTA Deputy Police Chief John Martino, who is overseeing the development and implementation of the policy, said police, some accompanied by explosive-sniffing dogs, will randomly pick out riders for inspection throughout the transit system daily. If the dogs are present -- there are only four used by the force currently -- riders would not have to open their bags, but make them available for the dogs to sniff, Martino said.

If no dogs are present, "a brief opening and a quick look in will usually be enough to judge if there's any cause for alarm," Martino said. "Wherever possible, we would use an explosive-detection canine that would just sniff -- no requirement to open them at all in that case."

Martino said, however, that the number of inspections would increase dramatically during the convention at the end of July, just as thousands of commuters who normally drive to work will cram onto subways and commuter rail trains because of extensive road and highway closures. He also said riders can expect the number of inspections to increase whenever the US Homeland Security Department changes the color-coded threat advisory to orange or red, the highest levels.

Martino would not specify how many bag inspections will be conducted, either during the convention or at times when the threat level is not elevated.

Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said she understands the need to increase vigilance on the region's rail and bus systems, but contended that the system being devised by the MBTA is deeply flawed and may violate the US Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

"The Fourth Amendment doesn't stop at your wrist when you carry a briefcase; it includes your bag," Rose said. "It either has to be truly random, or it has to have a root in a reasonable basis of suspicion."

"What does random mean? How do you ensure that is random?" Rose continued. "That means no discretion at all."
Rose dismissed comparisons of the T's policy to baggage checks at the nation's airports and called the move excessive.

"It's not imaginable to stop everybody getting on trains for their morning commute, and let's face it, a train doesn't have the same mass killing potential that a hijacked airplane does. You can't drive a train into a skyscraper."

T riders told by a reporter about the bag inspection policy yesterday reacted with a mixture of terrorism-weary resignation, annoyance, and in some cases, skepticism that police officers were capable of carrying out a truly random search system.

Alejandro Roberts, 25, a filmmaker from Dorchester interviewed at the JFK-UMass Red Line station, said he would be upset if such a search were to make him late for an appointment, but expressed greater worries about the specter of racial profiling.

Pamela Pratt, 46, a hospital supervisor from Randolph, said , "We all know who will be stopped -- black people like me or my brothers."

Other passengers, however, said they understood that they may have to give up some privacy to protect against attacks such as those that occurred in Madrid.

"It's a gray area," said Caleb Charland, 23, a Dorchester photographer. "I don't want people searching my bags, but if it increases safety, I understand."

Carter, who confirmed that the agency was developing the plans, said T officials have not announced the policy because he and other police officials are still working out the details on how to balance security and privacy concerns.
"Everything we do here is to protect and uphold and defend the constitutional rights of everyone, particuarly our patrons on the system," Carter said. "That is one of the reasons why the policy is not something that is just sitting there, ready for us to publish tomorrow morning. . . . How do we do this to make sure constitutional rights are in place? We don't want to abridge those rights, but in this era, we need the highest degree of security."

Carter said he is determined to have the baggage inspection procedure in place for the Democratic convention, which has been deemed a special "national security" event by the US Secret Service.

"We're on a very tight clock here; we're working feverishly to come to a finalized policy," Carter said. "We will meet with various groups, particularly the leading civil rights groups about this, but we will not be deterred in ensuring we have the highest level of security for the convention."
Carter and his deputies said the cost of the new program would be minimal because the force, including canine units, is already patrolling stations.

Last month, T police announced that the entire force has been receiving counterterrorism training that includes spotting suspicious behavior. The ACLU and riders groups, fearful that the policy could lead to random ID checks, have contended that the stops represent an unwarranted intrusion. But T officials insist that the "behavior pattern recognition" training that all officers are receiving is geared toward security, and not to pestering riders.

Martino said the T Police Department is seeking to double the size of the dog unit to spread the baggage inspections across the vast transit system.
For now, however, Deputy T Police Chief Thomas McCarthy, who oversees intelligence operations, expressed confidence that the heightened presence of police officers will send a message that the MBTA is not a good place for terrorists to attack.

"You send a message that we're a harder target than some other place," McCarthy said. "That will hopefully make it safer."

David Abel of the Globe Staff contributed to this story.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


Week of May 17, 2004

Despite serious constitutional concerns being raised (including by Bob Barr and groups on the right and the left) about the USA PATRIOT Act, the Administration and some Members of Congress are pushing for its expansion. As was revealed over a year ago, the Administration had drafted and quietly circulated on Capitol Hill, an expanded PATRIOT Act bill, dubbed “Son of Patriot.” In addition, Patriot Act supporters have been attempting -- with some success -- to enact provisions in the Son of Patriot Act piecemeal. The latest effort is H.R. 3179, the “Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act,” in opposition to which Bob Barr testified on Capitol Hill May 18th. This piece of legislation would expand the “secret proceedings” already being used in government cases, would set criminal penalties for a library or other entities or persons to whom a government-issued subpoena is issued if they disclose it to anyone else, and would expand the reach of the Patriot Act to foreign persons with no connection to any foreign power. All these provisions are, in Barr’s view, unnecessary and raise additional constitutional concerns. For more details, see, for example, ”Flawed Anti-Terrorism Bill Gets a Hearing”, by Steve Lilienthal, CNSNews.com Commentary, May 18, 2004.

Week of May 3, 2004

In a giant step toward the ultimate surveillance society, the small, rich town of Manalapan, Florida, near West Palm Beach, has decided to install infrared cameras on roads in the community, to photograph the license plates of ALL vehicles entering the town. The township plans to install additional cameras to capture images of people in the vehicles. This gross invasion of privacy is the result of some recent robberies in the small but posh town. The policy of photographing ALL vehicles and their occupants, regardless of whether there is any evidence the vehicle violated any laws, apparently is a first, and bodes ill for the principle of privacy underlying our Bill of Rights.

Florida town to use blanket of surveillance cameras

Wealthy suburb goes snap happy

Week of April 26, 2004

Great Britain, America's closest ally in the Iraq War, and frequently a harbinger of things to come in America, has launched a pilot program for mandatory identification cards. The program is envisaged to require that the biometric cards be kept by British citizens at all time. The British are already the most heavily-surveilled society in the world, and this test program will move the country even closer to a society in which the government can, and will, track your every move. This pilot program will be closely watched by U.S. authorities, many of whom want our country to institute a mandatory, national identification card program. ID card trials to start next week


Week of March 29, 2004

In a major blow to protection against unreasonable police searches, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which includes Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi) has ruled that police can conduct searches without warrants, so long as the searches are "cursory," whatever that means. This case represents a hole in the Fourth Amendment -- which normally requires search warrants before police may enter our homes or businesses -- big enough to drive several Mack trucks through. The loss of privacy if this ruling is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, will be immense."

Court: Evidence can be used from some warrantless searches


Week of February 16, 2004

The bi-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a report on CAPPS II, the passenger profiling system which is being developed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to profile all airline passengers flying within, or into or out of the United States. The GAO report, conducted at the direction of the Congress, assessed CAPPS II according to eight criteria, including privacy concerns, accuracy, and abuse prevention. Despite the fact that the Administration still proposes to begin profiling airline passengers using CAPPS II this summer, the GAO concluded that in only one category had the TSA fully addressed congressional concerns! The fact that in seven of eight categories the GAO found the program deficient should raise serious red flags on the part of Congress, the airlines, and the traveling public. If in fact CAPPS II is implemented as currently proposed, serious privacy, accuracy and abuse problems are certain to develop."

GAO CAPPS II Report

Airport terrorist screening fails test


Week of February 2, 2004

United States District Court Judge Audrey Collins, in California, has ruled one provision of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. The section that was struck down gave the government the power to prosecute someone for providing money or assistance to an organization for non-terrorist purposes, simply because the government unilaterally decided that the organization was a terrorist organization for some other purpose, and the person could not defend themselves by establishing that the organization was in fact not a terrorist organization. There are important privacy aspects to this ruling, because it allows people to exercise their right to support groups of their chosing. The ruling does not prevent the government from prosecuting true terrorist organizations and those who in fact support those terrorist purposes.

CNN.com Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional


Week of January 26, 2004

Despite serious concerns having been raised about its constitutionality, and even though Congress has expressed serious misgivings about it, the new passenger profiling system known by its acronym, CAPPS II, will be implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) late this spring or early summer. CAPPS II will consist of a massive database, through which the name and personal data of every person seeking to travel by air, will be run. Each prospective traveller will receive a color code designating their "threat level," and those receiving anything other than a "green" will be subject to further interrogation or arrest. The government has decided to implement this system, focussing on law-abiding citizens, even though it has yet to implement a comprehensive terrorist watch list, and despite the fact some US air carriers, including Northwest Airlines, have been forced to admit they unlawfully already shared private data on passengers with the government."

Washington Post Northwest Gave U.S. Data on Passengers



The San Francisco Chronicle
JANUARY 13, 2004, TUESDAY, FINAL EDITION

Airport color-coding called 'illusory security'
Privacy groups outraged at anti-terror move

BYLINE: Carolyn Said

A federal anti-terrorism plan to screen airline passengers into color-coded groups by feeding personal information about them into huge computer databases is drawing outrage from civil libertarians and privacy advocates.

Travelers would be classified into one of three groups: green for good to go, yellow for investigate further and red for stop from flying.

The Transportation Security Administration, part of the Department of Homeland Security, confirmed a Washington Post report Monday that the data-mining plan will start this summer after a testing period within the next few months. While the government says the plan will improve screening for potential terrorists, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union denounced it as "dragnet profiling" that would discriminate against minorities and the poor.

"I'm quite certain there will be a formal legal challenges from privacy advocates and civil liberties advocates," said Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.

The plan, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would require all airline travelers to provide full names, home addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth when they book flights. The government would feed that information, along with flight itinerary, into commercial databases to profile the travelers, assigning each passenger a color code based on the estimated security risk he or she poses. Codes, encrypted on the boarding pass, would sort passengers into three groups:

-- Green, allowed to travel after standard screening;

-- Yellow, to be searched and questioned;

-- Red, to be barred from the flight.

The databases to be used would include government lists of suspected criminals and terrorists, commercial systems that compile public records, such as Lexis-Nexis and Acxiom, and information on consumers, such as mailing lists, that has been "data-mined" by marketers. At one point, the government planned to include credit records in the databases, but it backed away from that plan after public outcries.

The government said the new system, which it said has a false-positive rate of 3 or 4 percent, would improve on the current system, which relies more heavily on indicators such as whether a passenger paid cash or booked a one-way flight.

"We will reduce the number of misidentifications and false positives," said Mark Hatfield, a TSO spokesman, in a conference call with reporters on Monday. According to the Washington Post, the government estimates that 5 percent of travelers will be coded yellow or red, fewer than the 15 percent who are flagged under current screening methods.

Hatfield said the system would not use data about race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Privacy advocates said the new plan opens the door to potential abuses.

"CAPPS II is illusory security on the cheap," Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project, said in a statement. "Instead of zeroing in on suspects based on real evidence of wrongdoing, it sweeps every airline passenger through a dragnet. From business class on down to coach, you're going to be checked against secret government intelligence databases. What happens in cases of mistaken identity or simple computer error?"

Givens, of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said she thinks the government should spend its time and money on "good, old-fashioned intelligence" instead of seeking a magic-bullet technology fix.

"They're looking for a needle in a haystack," she said. "I think that CAPPS II will not only implicate a lot of innocent people because of a high number of false positives but also will lead to a false feeling of security. The terrorists will figure this out in no time flat, and they will easily figure out how to evade the system."

Another issue, she said, is use of the system for reasons other than catching terrorists. The government already has said it will use the screening system to watch for criminals. Initially, it said the system would monitor those accused of a variety of federal crimes; now it has narrowed that focus to just violent crimes.

"That's a slippery slope," Givens said. "Violent crimes today, deadbeat dads tomorrow. Where do you draw the line?"

Airlines, which will be compelled to comply with whatever program the government devises, have publicly asked the TSA to be mindful of privacy concerns.

"We support prescreening passengers to detect security threats," said Doug Wills, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the industry's trade group in Washington, D.C. "The challenge will be how do we protect passengers and also protect the right to privacy."

"We will cooperate with them when necessary, but our passengers' privacy is of the utmost importance for us," said United Airlines spokesman Jason Schechter in Chicago.

At San Francisco International Airport, where passengers are already questioned, searched and electronically scanned, most travelers said Monday they were less than thrilled with the idea of being color-coded as well.

"I fail to see the purpose," said Sam Schaevitz, 25, of Fremont, on his way to Vancouver. "It seems unlikely that everyone red will be stopped. I'd be happy to give (personal) details, but I'm not sure it would work."

Nidia Santos, of Concord, on her way to El Salvador with her 12-year-old son Josh for a family visit, said she opposed the plan.

"I feel that it's very invasive," she said. "Why do they have to do that? You already have to remove your shoes and everything else. One time, they checked my son's underwear."

Shelby Hicklin, 28, of Los Angeles, said the color-code plan was fine with her, but Michael Page, a 47-year-old drug salesman, said he was leery about giving up too much personal information about himself.

"The government wants to find everything on us," he said. "If I give (the information) to the government, who are they going to give it to? I feel they do enough already."

Separately, the government is ushering in a system called registered traveler or trusted traveler, in which passengers could choose to provide personal information to be prescreened for quicker security checks in airports. Registered travelers would receive a special card, probably with biometric identification, such as fingerprints, that would allow them to avoid being tagged for extra airport screenings. The ACLU found fault with this proposal, saying that it would force all travelers to register to avoid getting second-class treatment at the gate.

Both systems follow the new visa-tracking program instituted last week, in which travelers from certain countries are fingerprinted and photographed when they enter the country.

------------------

Airline screening

Timing: Tests of CAPPS II will begin within the next few months; the system will be rolled out this summer. The government hasn't yet determined whether it will be implemented airport by airport or airline by airline.

------------------

GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO TAKE CLOSER LOOK AT AIRLINE PASSENGERS

Here is how the proposed CAPPS II (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System) would work:

1. You book a flight with a travel agency or airline, which takes your personal information - typically, full name, home address and phone number, and date of birth.

2. Your personal information, along with information about your travel itinerary, are sent to the Transportation Security Administration.

3. The Transportation Security Administration:

- Verifies your identity using information from commercial data providers.

- Does a criminal background check.

- Assesses the likelihood that you are involved in terrorist activities.

4. Using the information gathered, the TSA assigns you a color-coded "risk score" - low, unknown or high - which is sent to the airline before your flight.

5. Your assigned risk score will determine what happens in the pre-flight screening process. - Low risk: You will pass through the ordinary security screening process. - Unknown risk: You will be subject to an intensified search. - High risk: Law enforcement or other authorities will be notified for appropriate action.

Sources: Department of Homeland Security; www.dontspyon.us

Chronicle staff writers Charlie Goodyear and Steve Rubenstein contributed to this report.E-mail Carolyn Said at csaid@sfchronicle.com


Week of January 12, 2004

President Bush rcently signed into law an expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act. The new law expands the circumstances under which the FBI can gain access to private records without going before a judge to ensure appropriate constitutional safeguards have been met. The law also prohibits businesses to which these non-judicial, "adminstrative subpoenas" have been directed, from informing their clients that they have been forced to turn over private records. This further erodes privacy protections heretofore guaranteed citizens.

Week of December 29, 2003

Privacy took a number of hits from government at all levels, especially the federal government, in 2003. From the federal government's expansive use of the PATRIOT ACT to more easily snoop on everything from our e-mails to our bank accounts, to the continued development of CAPPS II -- the airline passenger profiling system -- the federal government has shown a disdain for the privacy of law-abiding citizens that is unprecedented in our nation's history.

Even though this assault on privacy led by Washington, and all-too eagerly followed by many state governments and private companies, has severely bruised our privacy rights which are the foundation for our Bill of Rights, there have been some bright spots, too. The joining together of conservative and liberal groups to educate the citizenry and organize opposition to the government's war on privacy, has led to a number of important, if limited legislative victories.

Overall, however, we lost more ground than we gained, and we must redouble our efforts to protect privacy in 2004, so we don't report a year from now that the government nailed the final nail in the coffin of privacy next year.

Week of December 22, 2003

The final report issued by the four-year old congressionally-mandated commission studying domestic anti-terrorism measures, headed by former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, included a recommendation that a permanent, bipartisan panel be formed to review the impact on privacy and other civil liberties posed by anti-terrorism measures. Even though the Bush Administration has not yet endorsed this or other findings by the commission, the fact that such a respected panel, after a thorough review of pre- and post-911 anti-terrorism matters felt the need to recommend strongly the creation of such a panel, is welcome news to all of us who advocate an approach to fighting terrorism that respects rather than rebukes our civil liberties.

Terrorism Commission Recommends Civil Liberties Watchdog

Week of December 15, 2003

I suppose it was only a matter of time before this happened, but it is disturbing nonetheless. A school in Phoenix, Arizona has become the first in the nation to install facial-recognition cameras. The Sheriff's office, not the school system itself, spear-headed the effort, using -- of course -- grant monies. The ostensible reason for installing the cameras, was to detect sex offenders who might attempt to enter the middle school, even though the Sheriff admitted in an interview the chances of thus catching a sex offender are 'remote.'

Even though the Sheriff's office promises not to retain any facially-scanned pictures, except any known sex offenders, we've heard that before and know that governments rarely can resist retaining such data. Moreover, such systems are notoriously unreliable, and their placement in a school sets a worrisome precedent. Of course, as advocates of 1984-type surveillance know, placing such devices at schools will further acclimate children to having their pictures taken, so that further privacy-invasive steps will be either unnoticed or happily accepted as helping 'make our kids safer,' which is how many parents view these efforts. After all, isn't anything government wants to do always done 'for the children?'"

Phoenix school installs facial scan system seeking sex offenders, missing children

Week of December 8, 2003

Personal communication, that is, words spoken privately from one person to another, which the essence of privacy, took a body blow last week, when a school in Louisiana punished a seven-year old boy for using the word "gay" in a conversation with another child during recess! School tells boy, 7, 'gay' is 'bad word'

This notion that every word spoken, no matter the context, no matter the place, and no matter the age of the person uttering the words, is subject to government censorship by the language police, has got to stop; if not, we will have a generation of children grow up speaking nothing but the same pap that one finds in our dumbed-down school text books. Of course, our kids will still be allowed to hear use of the "F word" on TV, because that's "protected speech!"


School tells boy, 7, 'gay' is 'bad word'
Associated Press
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
Lafayette, La. --- A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday.
Second-grader Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess Nov. 11 at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School when a classmate asked about Marcus' mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint. Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother is gay. When the other child asked for an explanation, Marcus told him, "Gay is when a girl likes another girl.".

A teacher scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."

The ACLU is demanding that the school apologize to the boy and his mother, Sharon Huff.

"I was concerned when the assistant principal called and told me my son had said a word so bad that he didn't want to repeat it over the phone," Huff said. "But that was nothing compared to the shock I felt when my little boy came home and told me that his teacher had told him his family is a dirty word."


Week of November 24, 2003

Two courts last week, in unrelated rulings, struck small blows for privacy and against government snooping, but failed to go nearly far enough in limiting government power to invade citizens' privacy.

In the first case, a California appellate court affirmed a lower court ruling that found the city of San Diego's red-light surveillance camera system was uncomstitutional. The court correctly determined it was impermissible for a local government to install a red-light surveillance system and then turn the running of that system over to a private company (in this case, Lockheed-Martin). The California court also found the system unconstitutional because the city gave the private company a fee for each conviction of a motorist using evidence gathered from the company's cameras. Ruling on red-light cameras upheld Even though the city has since installed a new red-light camera system, this ruling hopefully will lead to limitations on other cities' improper use of camera technology to invade privacy and ensnare citizens.

In the second case, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California, ruled the FBI cannot use a vehicle's OnStar computing system to surreptitiously listen to conversations in the vehicle, a technical feat the system allows. While this ruling appears on the surface to be a victory for privacy and against outrageous government snooping, it stopped far short of that. The court ruled on the narrow questions of whether the FBI could secretly listen in to what's going on in a vehicle equipped with OnStar, when in so doing, the FBI had to first surreptitiously disable the vehicle's computer-notification device. The dangerous implication of this federal court ruling, is that if the FBI is able to work with its technicians and those at General Motors, to ensure that in conducting its vehicular eavesdropping it won't disable the system's ability to assist in an emergency, then the Bureau can go ahead with its snooping. This is a dangerous precedent, and a clear reason people ought to be extremely wary of buying such systems. Court to FBI: No spying on in-car computers


Week of November 10, 2003

Even though a proposal by the United Nations to regulate the World Wide Web is expected to be shelved when it comes up at a world information summit next month in Geneva, the mere fact such an idea is being seriously considered should send shudders through every person in the US who uses the internet or who cares about privacy. Based on the history of efforts by the world's biggest bureaucracy to involve itsel in other matters over which it has no legitimate claim, we all know that once such an idea surfaces it does not die.

Plan for UN to run internet 'will be shelved'
The Financial Times (London)
By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: November 9 2003 21:19 | Last Updated: November 9 2003 21:19
http://news.ft.com/
An attempt by developing countries to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda, summit sources say.

It will be one of the main bones of contention this week as government negotiators and non-governmental organisations descend on Geneva for the final round of preparatory talks on the draft declaration and plan of action due to be endorsed by heads of state and government at the summit on December 10-12.

However, UN officials say they see no compromise emerging. They expect governments to decide instead to continue talks on internet governance with the aim of reaching accord by 2005, when the second stage of the two-part summit is due to take place in Tunisia.

"They're no longer going to try to agree on this," a UN official said last week.

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago.

The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the information summit.

However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.

Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.

But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.

The question of internet governance, which erupted at a relatively late stage in the preparatory summit negotiations, is just one of many issues negotiators must try to resolve this week. Rich and poor countries are also at odds over creation of a "digital solidarity fund" that would finance investment to bridge the "digital divide" in access to information and communications technologies.

Other unresolved disputes concern the balance between intellectual property protection and access to information, the role of the media, and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

Week of November 3, 2003

The United States Postal Service has withdrawn a proposal recently published in the Federal Register that implied the Service was actively pursuing a plan to develop and use so-called "smart stamps." Smart stamps, being pushed by the Bush Administration as a way to identify and track mail, has raised serious and legitimate privacy concerns. While we applaud the Postal Service for withdrawing the proposed regulations at this time, it has indicated it will reissue them but in a way that doesn't cause "misunderstanding in some quarters." Hmmmm. Sounds to me like this is at best a temporary victory. Let's monitor this one carefully.

'Smart stamps' next in war on terrorism
Postal Service retracts notice to identify senders

Week of October 27, 2003

Georgia became the latest in a series of states to opt out of the so-called MATRIX system (Multi-state Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange). In his statement announcing the decision, Governor Sonny Perdue noted he had misgivings all along about the "privacy issues" involved even in participating in the initial pilot project, and that his concerns over funding and privacy were such that he could not allow "personal information of law-abiding citizens" to be transferred to the multi-state database. The governor's decision followed by one day an opinion by Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Bake that for Georgia to lawfully participate in the MATRIX system would require a change to Georgia's laws protecting the privacy of personal information of its citizens.

Governor Perdue's Statement on the MATRIX
Barr's Release


Week of October 20, 2003

A bipartisan group of Senators, led by Republican Larry Craig of Idaho and Democrat Richard Durbin of Illinois, have just introduced legislation that would repeal some of the more controversial and privacy-invasive provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT Act. The new legislation, S. 1709, the SAFE Act (Security and Freedom Enhanced Act), would among other things, roll back or limit the provisions in PATRIOT ACT that now allow federal agents the power to conduct "sneak and peek" searches, "roving wiretaps," and gain easy access to library and other private records.

States bow out of anti-terror database

Week of September 29, 2003

For the Second week in a row, the Privacy Meter registered an "up tick." This good news was the result of congressional action on two fronts. First, the Congress has at least mandated a closer look at the privacy-invasive CAPPS II airline passenger profiling system, CAPPS II comments . We hope Congress will kill this inefficient and unconstitutional passenger profiling system, but the action in mandating a report to the Congress before it can be implemented is at least a baby step in the right direction (Congress Puts Brakes on CAPPS II). Second, Congress has driven another nail in the coffin of the infamous Total Information Awareness (TIA) program that was being developed by John Poindexter at the Department of Defense. Even though this is not a stake through the heart of this beast, it will at least make it a bit more difficult for the government to resurrect the program in another guise; which it will do (Congress kills data-mining computer program).

Week of September 22, 2003

California, which usually gives the rest of the country things that the rest of the country neither wants nor needs, this week gave us a small but important victory for privacy. Embattled Governor Gray Davis signed a law requiring car makers to disclose the existence of secret recording devices in automobiles, and limiting access to information they record.-- Bob Barr

Privacy Law in California Shields Drivers