DHS Ending Domestic Satellite Spying Article Missing the Point: Fusion Centers

I am always skeptical of any good news I hear from government officials. So when Janet Napolitano was reported to have ended the Domestic spying by satellites I searched for the catch to the so-good-it-can't-be-true government action. And it has to do with two words: Fusion Centers.

After receiving a letter from Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, Napolitano decided the program should be canceled.

Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement.

Instead, Bratton said, Homeland Security should focus on the fusion centers across the country and improving information-sharing with state and local officials to improve the domestic intelligence picture.

Bratton said he was unaware whether police chiefs has been consulted by Bush administration officials about the satellite program.

"To my knowledge, this is the first opportunity major law enforcement organizations have had to participate in this significant and complex initiative," he said in the letter.

The catch is increased power to the fusion centers. The ACLU demonstrates the danger of fusion centers in their updated report in 2008. LAPD Chief Bratton plays an important role in the amelioration of fusion centers and domestic spying. The LA Times cites a program issued by Bratton in 2008, "that formally required all officers to report incidents "potentially related to foreign or domestic terrorism," using McNamara's program." McNamara's program,

We can’t afford to be in the dark about fusion centers. And just because the government isn’t announcing this domestic surveillance program in grand style the way it has with other surveillance programs, doesn’t mean we can ignore it. Given the broad scope of information fusion centers collect, process and disseminate,it would be irresponsible not to enforce vigorous public oversight. We have to make sure our Congress and our state legislatures know it’s up to them to guard our privacy and to impose appropriate oversight controls and accountability standards on these out-of-control data-gathering monsters.

Barack Obama's Statement On the Events in Iran

Barack Obama has issued a statement on the protests taking place in Iran. His statement can be found here.

It is fine to have a private opinion about interfering in other nations’ affairs, for the better or worse welfare of that nation and its people. In the United States freedom of speech allows citizens to do that. However, Barack Obama’s statement on Iran is troubling in its implications. Although I and my readers may personally agree in the meaning and sentiments Obama expresses, and even though his feelings about Iran may be for the betterment of the people as a whole, they are imperialist in nature. While he attempted to remain neutral in the events taking place (as he should have) and although this statement is mild compared to what could have been said, it is nonetheless imperialistic. It would have been much better had Obama not made any comments toward the Iranian situation, and thus remained neutral.

It is not in our interests to promote or endorse candidates in elections across the world in the hope their people can turn out with the most individual freedom or be the most “America friendly” regime. That, at its core, is enforcing tyranny on others. The same type of tyranny we fought a revolution to end. It is the same type of tyranny Madison warned us against when he said that the United States should not look for monsters to destroy. The imposition of our values on other nations, however wonderful these values may be, is not the reason for the establishment of our government. Our government does not have the mandate from its people to spread the values of our revolution, or to aid others in shaking off the chains of tyranny. Our government was created to protect the life, liberty, and property, of its citizens.

However, let us hold these conditions and see if Americans would feel comfortable if China interfered with Iran’s elections. Perhaps China’s communistic values of equality and state planning are better served by Ahmadinejad’s presidency. According to the Chinese, they would be appalled if the election ended with a man who was for the impoverishing of the working class and the expansion of capitalist evils.

The point is that the imposition of values by the state, however good natured or good willed, is not the will of the people. Governments are derived from the consent of the governed, and the Ayatollah still has that consent, at least at the moment of this typing. Outside forces influencing the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, as we have used on multiple occasions in the post-World War II world, defy the most basic principles of the social contract. This is why, despite Obama’s efforts, he hurts the cause which he hopes will come to pass. Obama should instead promote trade and travel between our nations, and let the ideas of individual liberty and private property change the regime from within, as may have already occurred due to Iran’s westernised students. If freedom is desired, it cannot come through tyranny.

S. 773: The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

~Justin Schoville

There is a new threat to the last frontier of freedom- the internet.

Shelly Roche, at Break the Matrix, explains this bill perfectly, but for those of you would like to read a synthesis, here's the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) regarding the bill.

An interesting point Shelly Roche indicated was Section 14 b, indicating the President:

"may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network."

Now the two key terms in this are Federal Government system or network and critical infrastructure information system or network. A Federal Government system is understandably under this measure, however, whats a critical infrastructure information system?

Upon further inspection in the "definition" section at the end of the bill, Rockefeller and Co. tell us:

"State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks."

Oh I see- the President can shut down any traffic on any nongovernmental system as long as he declares it to be "critical". Interesting.

One of the reasons this bill was introduced I imagine is to prevent a loss to our economic sector due to cyber-crime, and to prevent the theft of intellectual property rights. However, what will be the commercial reaction when the President has uniform internet regulations for private business and can shut down their internet at any time due to an "emergency"? The seen effect of this is to limit any damage to the nation by regulation and government intervention. The unseen effect will be the failure of government to protect these private networks to the standard they have had currently without intervention. I predict quality of protection will decrease and the business sector will be hurt more by the passing of this bill than not.

The other important power declared in this bill would be the Secretary of Commerce's new powers- as the EFF explains perfectly:

'"The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access… "

In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to “all relevant data” without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations'

I'm sure these regulations and spying powers will do wonders to the business community, including other internet users who just want to surf the web. I mean, I always have had a difficult time surfing the web for fear of people hijacking my computer. I was just thinking, "its about time someone stepped in to regulate this mess!" And sure enough, here comes Rockefeller and the Federal Government. I feel safer already!

[The Cybersecurity Act itself can be found here]