The Need for Democratization of Digital Security to Ensure the Right to Freedom of Expression. Joint submission of the Citizen Lab (Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto)
"In response to the call for submissions of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression regarding the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications, the Citizen Lab and independent research Collin Anderson have submitted a joint analysis, entitled "The need for democratization of digital security solutions to ensure the right to freedom of expression." The submission explores the expression and privacy of civil society actors, many of which are subject to politically-motivated digital surveillance and censorship."
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label Surveillance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Surveillance. Show all posts
The FBI’s Trojan Horse?
Over the past few decades, a paradigm shift has occurred within policing. Known generally as community policing, the basic idea is that state and local law enforcement officers should integrate themselves into the communities they serve.
The idea seems simple and, in theory, uncontroversial: the better the relationship police have with the public, the easier it will be to solve problems, such as crime, that affect everyone's quality of life. But in practice, if police are not properly trained, if programs aren't closely monitored for compliance with American communities' constitutional rights, community policing can open the door to biased policing and other rights violations.
That's what happened after 9/11, when the FBI initiated a mosque outreach program in Northern California.
Californian Muslim community members may have thought that the FBI was building relationships of trust by coming to mosques to discuss problems the community might face, such as hate crimes. That's what the FBI did in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. But what appeared initially to be a laudatory program dedicated to protecting the civil rights of American Muslims developed into something very different.
Read on....
The idea seems simple and, in theory, uncontroversial: the better the relationship police have with the public, the easier it will be to solve problems, such as crime, that affect everyone's quality of life. But in practice, if police are not properly trained, if programs aren't closely monitored for compliance with American communities' constitutional rights, community policing can open the door to biased policing and other rights violations.
That's what happened after 9/11, when the FBI initiated a mosque outreach program in Northern California.
Californian Muslim community members may have thought that the FBI was building relationships of trust by coming to mosques to discuss problems the community might face, such as hate crimes. That's what the FBI did in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. But what appeared initially to be a laudatory program dedicated to protecting the civil rights of American Muslims developed into something very different.
Read on....
Judge at Center of NSA Spying Controversy Attended Expenses-Paid Terrorism Seminar
US District Judge Roger Vinson, who signed an order requiring Verizon to
give the National Security Agency telephone records for tens of
millions of American customers, attended an expenses-paid judicial
seminar sponsored by a libertarian think tank that featured lectures
from a vocal proponent of executive branch powers.
Vinson, whose term on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court began in 2006 and expired last month, was the only member of the special court to attend the August 2008 conference sponsored by the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, according to disclosure records filed by the federal judge.
The Center for Public Integrity collected the disclosure records as part of an investigative report that revealed how large corporations and conservative foundations routinely sponsor ideologically driven educational conferences for state and federal judges.
It's unclear which lectures Vinson attended during the "Terrorism, Civil Liberty, & National Security" seminar. FREE's website only provides a general agenda for the program and no lecture transcripts.
But Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor who delivered two lectures, argued in a 2007 book he co-wrote — Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts—that "the executive branch, not Congress or the judicial branch, should make the tradeoff between security and liberty."
Read on...
Vinson, whose term on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court began in 2006 and expired last month, was the only member of the special court to attend the August 2008 conference sponsored by the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, according to disclosure records filed by the federal judge.
The Center for Public Integrity collected the disclosure records as part of an investigative report that revealed how large corporations and conservative foundations routinely sponsor ideologically driven educational conferences for state and federal judges.
It's unclear which lectures Vinson attended during the "Terrorism, Civil Liberty, & National Security" seminar. FREE's website only provides a general agenda for the program and no lecture transcripts.
But Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor who delivered two lectures, argued in a 2007 book he co-wrote — Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts—that "the executive branch, not Congress or the judicial branch, should make the tradeoff between security and liberty."
Read on...
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance
In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications,
the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its
effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the
government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and
engaged in unconstitutional spying.
This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:
Read on...
This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:
Read on...
Civil liberties: American Freedom on the Line
A few months before he was first elected president in 2008, Barack Obama
made a calculation that dismayed many of his ardent supporters but
which he judged essential to maintain his drive to the White House. By
backing President Bush's bill granting the US government wide new surveillance powers – including legal immunity for telecoms
companies which had co-operated with the Bush administration's
post-9/11 programme of wiretapping without warrants – Mr Obama stepped
back from an issue that had initially helped to define his candidacy but
was now judged to threaten his national security credentials. It was a
big call. Even so, it seems unlikely that either supporters or critics,
or even Mr Obama himself, ever believed that five years later a
re-elected President Obama would oversee an administration that stands
accused of routinely snooping into the phone records of millions of
Americans.
Read on...
Read on...
How the Government Targeted Occupy
Freedom of conscience is one of the most fundamental human freedoms.
This freedom is not merely about one’s ability to choose to believe or
not believe in religion or a particular philosophy. In a democracy,
freedom of conscience is about the ability to be critical of government
and corporations, and to be free from the chilling fear that being
critical will subject you to government surveillance.
Freedom of conscience is not fully realized in isolation. Without the ability to share one’s thoughts, to speak out about injustice, or to join with others in peaceably assembling to petition for redress of grievances, this core freedom is not truly free. Americans should be able to exercise these most sacred rights in free society without worry of being monitored by the government.
In our new report, “Dissent or Terror: How the Nation's Counter Terrorism Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street,” written by Center for Media and Democracy contributor and DBA Press publisher Beau Hodai, we detail several ways in which our tax dollars are being squandered on law enforcement—or so-called “homeland security”personnel monitoring Americans who dare to voice dissent against the extraordinary influence that some of the world's most powerful corporations have on on our elected officials.
Read on....
Freedom of conscience is not fully realized in isolation. Without the ability to share one’s thoughts, to speak out about injustice, or to join with others in peaceably assembling to petition for redress of grievances, this core freedom is not truly free. Americans should be able to exercise these most sacred rights in free society without worry of being monitored by the government.
In our new report, “Dissent or Terror: How the Nation's Counter Terrorism Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street,” written by Center for Media and Democracy contributor and DBA Press publisher Beau Hodai, we detail several ways in which our tax dollars are being squandered on law enforcement—or so-called “homeland security”personnel monitoring Americans who dare to voice dissent against the extraordinary influence that some of the world's most powerful corporations have on on our elected officials.
Read on....
The court sides with secrecy
When Congress and the executive branch collude to keep Americans in
the dark about whether their privacy is being invaded, the Supreme Court
should be willing to lift the veil of secrecy — at least to the extent
of forcing the government to explain how often it is monitoring the
confidential conversations of Americans. The court abdicated that
important watchdog role Tuesday when it ruled 5 to 4 that a group of
journalists, lawyers and activists couldn't challenge the
constitutionality of a shadowy electronic surveillance program. It's
only the latest example of the court's refusal to afford victims (or
potential victims) of post-9/11 policies their day in court.
Tuesday's decision came in a lawsuit filed by several people — including lawyers for suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay — who claim that a 2008 law authorizing the surveillance of non-Americans abroad violates the constitutional rights of Americans whose phone conversations and emails might be caught up in the electronic dragnet. That would be a challenging case to make, but the Supreme Court won't even allow the plaintiffs to try. It dismissed their suit on the grounds that they lack "standing" to sue because they can't prove that their conversations with sources and clients abroad actually have been monitored.
Read on...
This is a LATimes editorial. Tom
Tuesday's decision came in a lawsuit filed by several people — including lawyers for suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay — who claim that a 2008 law authorizing the surveillance of non-Americans abroad violates the constitutional rights of Americans whose phone conversations and emails might be caught up in the electronic dragnet. That would be a challenging case to make, but the Supreme Court won't even allow the plaintiffs to try. It dismissed their suit on the grounds that they lack "standing" to sue because they can't prove that their conversations with sources and clients abroad actually have been monitored.
Read on...
This is a LATimes editorial. Tom
5 Unbelievably Creepy Surveillance Tactics
Since the erosion of Americans' civil liberties depends on high levels of public apathy, some of the most dangerous privacy breaches take place incrementally and under the radar; if it invites comparisons to Blade Runner or Orwell, then someone in the PR department didn't do their job. Meanwhile, some of the biggest threats to privacy, like insecure online data or iPhone GPS tracking, are physically unobtrusive and therefore easily ignored. And it'll be at least a year or two until the sky is overrun by spy drones.
So when a method of surveillance literally resembles a prop or plot point in a sci-fi movie, it helps to reveal just how widespread and sophisticated commercial and government monitoring has become. Here are five recent developments that seem almost unreal in their dystopian creepiness.
1. Buses and street cars that can hear what you say .
Read on...
Google: Government Surveillance Requests Are Way Up—and the U.S. Is the Leader
Skeptics often dismiss those concerned about growing levels of
surveillance as paranoid conspiracy theorists. But Google’s latest transparency report, released Tuesday, shows the fears are grounded in reality: Government surveillance is on the rise.
Every six months Google publishes transparency reports to disclose
how many requests it has received from government agencies to hand over
user data or take down content. Yesterday's figures
reveal Google received 20,938 inquiries from government entities around
the world for user data in the first half of this year—a 55 percent
increase in requests received during the same period in 2010. The United
States by far made the most requests for user data, submitting more
than one-third of the 20,938 received. India was second, followed by
Brazil.
Read on...
Read on...
Kids Tagged With RFID Chips? The Creepy New Technology Schools Use to Track Everything Kids Do -- And the Profit Motive Behind It
The digital tracking and surveillance of school-aged kids has been growing.
Much attention has been given to the phenomenon of corporate tracking of kids’ online activities, activities that violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The law, originally adopted in 1998, requires Web sites aimed at kids to get parental consent before gathering information about those users who are under 13 years. Many companies, including a Disney subsidiary, have violated it. Corporate marketing interests, most notably Facebook, are fighting proposed revisions to COPPA.
A second front in the tracking of young people has gotten far less attention. Schools across the country are adopting a variety of different tools to monitor students both in school and outside school. Among these tools are RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags embedded in school ID cards, GPS tracking software in computers, and even CCTV video camera systems. According to school authorities, these tools are being adopted not to simply increase security, but to prevent truancy, cut down on theft and even improve students' eating habits.
Read on...
Much attention has been given to the phenomenon of corporate tracking of kids’ online activities, activities that violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The law, originally adopted in 1998, requires Web sites aimed at kids to get parental consent before gathering information about those users who are under 13 years. Many companies, including a Disney subsidiary, have violated it. Corporate marketing interests, most notably Facebook, are fighting proposed revisions to COPPA.
A second front in the tracking of young people has gotten far less attention. Schools across the country are adopting a variety of different tools to monitor students both in school and outside school. Among these tools are RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags embedded in school ID cards, GPS tracking software in computers, and even CCTV video camera systems. According to school authorities, these tools are being adopted not to simply increase security, but to prevent truancy, cut down on theft and even improve students' eating habits.
Read on...
You’re Being Watched: Surveillance Systems Get Smart
Video, video everywhere, and not enough people to watch it. That’s the conundrum
facing military and security personnel today, the people who sit in
front of banks of monitors, watching hours of mind-numbingly mundane
footage of people going about their business, yet must be attuned to any
slight clues to a wanted suspect or potential crime.
But now, researchers at MIT and the University of Minnesota have created a new program to discern such signals from the video noise faster and more accurately than a human or existing automated system.
It’s a new type of smart surveillance system that “learns” from previously recorded video footage how to quickly scan realtime feeds and identify specific suspects. It can also flag unusual, potentially dangerous changes in an environment like an airport, such as when someone deliberately leaves behind a bag.
“The learning phase is very fast, not requiring more than a minute for the problems we explored,” wrote Christopher Amato, the leader of the effort and a postdoctoral candidate with MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).
Read on...
But now, researchers at MIT and the University of Minnesota have created a new program to discern such signals from the video noise faster and more accurately than a human or existing automated system.
It’s a new type of smart surveillance system that “learns” from previously recorded video footage how to quickly scan realtime feeds and identify specific suspects. It can also flag unusual, potentially dangerous changes in an environment like an airport, such as when someone deliberately leaves behind a bag.
“The learning phase is very fast, not requiring more than a minute for the problems we explored,” wrote Christopher Amato, the leader of the effort and a postdoctoral candidate with MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).
Read on...
Surveillance City: New Body Scanners Head to NYC
New plans for monitoring people in New York City has civil liberties advocates up in arms.
The International Business Times reports:
In a speech to the New York City Police Foundation Tuesday morning, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly announced the NYPD was working with the Department of Defense to develop a scanner that is capable of detecting concealed firearms.
The device picks up on the heat energy produced by people or objects, measured in terahertz, to pinpoint objects that are blocking that view of energy, like a gun. "If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example, a weapon, the device will highlight that object," Kelly explained. "This technology has shown a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical.
Canaries in the Data Mines
Civil libertarians raise alarm over America’s national surveillance network
We’re going to have a little chat,” the plain-clothed officer said to Susan Barney as he fastened handcuffs around her wrists and led her from the cell at the Boston police station, where she was being held with three other political activists. It was January 2009, and they had been arrested after refusing to move from the lobby of the building that houses the Israeli consulate while taking part in a “die-in” to protest Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
We’re going to have a little chat,” the plain-clothed officer said to Susan Barney as he fastened handcuffs around her wrists and led her from the cell at the Boston police station, where she was being held with three other political activists. It was January 2009, and they had been arrested after refusing to move from the lobby of the building that houses the Israeli consulate while taking part in a “die-in” to protest Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
This is odd, Barney thought. She had been arrested for civil disobedience several times and never before had the police wanted to chat.
Barney was led to a small room where the officer joined three other medvbzcvzkdvn around a table. They introduced themselves–she remembers someone from the Boston Police Department (BPD) and another from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)–and then began questioning her about her political activities and associations. Barney, schooled in civil disobedience and keenly aware of her rights, turned her back to the table and refused to answer, but not before one of her interrogators said, “I’m sure you recognize us. We come to all your protests.” She didn’t recognize them at the time, but now reports that two of them have shown up regularly at subsequent protests, including Occupy Boston.
Russian Protesters Encounter Surveillance UAV Drone
Thank goodness this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the land of the free… oh wait
Video has emerged of Russian pro Democracy protesters being watched by hovering surveillance drones overhead.
25,000 people gathered in Bolotnaya Square in Moscow Saturday, were stunned to witness the strange hovering object directly above them. Some climbed trees to take pictures and get a closer look at the “UFO”.
The craft is clearly some kind of small quadricopter drone similar to the one pictured below:
Alex Jones is over-the-top........but........... And there is this story:
Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front
Tom
Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention - A Summary
Abstract
A growing number of cities are using surveillance cameras to reduce crime, but little research exists to determine whether they’re worth the cost. With jurisdictions across the country tightening their belts, public safety resources are scarce—and policymakers need to know which potential investments are likely to bear fruit. This research brief summarizes the Urban Institute’s series documenting three cities use of public surveillance cameras and how they impacted crime in their neighborhoods.
Read on...
See this also:
A growing number of cities are using surveillance cameras to reduce crime, but little research exists to determine whether they’re worth the cost. With jurisdictions across the country tightening their belts, public safety resources are scarce—and policymakers need to know which potential investments are likely to bear fruit. This research brief summarizes the Urban Institute’s series documenting three cities use of public surveillance cameras and how they impacted crime in their neighborhoods.
Read on...
See this also:
Surveillance Cameras Cost-Effective Tools for Cutting Crime, 3-Year Study Concludes
Rights Group in Catch-22 of How to Prove It Was Targeted by Wiretapping Secret Program
NEW YORK and SAN FRANCISCO - August 30 - Last night the first brief was filed in the appeal in CCR v. Obama, a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against the Bush administration in 2006 to challenge the legality of the National Security Administration’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program. The suit originally sought an injunction ordering the government to end the program, and in response to this and other litigation, the government claimed to have shut down the program by 2007. In the remaining part of the case, CCR asked the court to order the government to destroy any records of surveillance of the plaintiffs—CCR attorneys and legal staff who feared that their phone calls and emails were subject to surveillance under the program.
The government argued that CCR did not have standing to sue because the Center lacked evidence that its staff and attorneys had actually been surveilled (and could not obtain or use such evidence in the court proceedings because such evidence would be a “state secret”). The lower court agreed, holding that, even though “plaintiffs appear to have established that their litigation activities have become more costly due to their concern about [possible surveillance under the NSA program],” plaintiffs could not sue without proof that they had actually been eavesdropped upon. That ruling is now under appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read on...
The government argued that CCR did not have standing to sue because the Center lacked evidence that its staff and attorneys had actually been surveilled (and could not obtain or use such evidence in the court proceedings because such evidence would be a “state secret”). The lower court agreed, holding that, even though “plaintiffs appear to have established that their litigation activities have become more costly due to their concern about [possible surveillance under the NSA program],” plaintiffs could not sue without proof that they had actually been eavesdropped upon. That ruling is now under appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read on...
First Nations Under Surveillance
Harper Government Prepares for First Nations “Unrest"
Quebec riot police advance on Barriere Lake community members after a peaceful blockade in October, 2008 in north-western Quebec.
Russell Diabo and Shiri Pasternak
Internal documents from Indian Affairs and the RCMP show that shortly after forming government in January of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the federal government tighten up on gathering and sharing intelligence on First Nations to anticipate and manage potential First Nation unrest across Canada.
Information obtained by Access to Information requests reveals that almost immediately upon taking power in 2006, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was given the lead role to spy on First Nations. The goal was to identify the First Nation leaders, participants and outside supporters of First Nation occupations and protests, and to closely monitor their actions.
To accomplish this task, INAC established a “Hot Spot Reporting System.” These weekly reports highlight all those communities across the country that engage in direct action to protect their lands and communities. They include Tobique First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) First Nation, Six Nations, Grassy Narrows, Stz’uminous First Nation, the Likhts’amsiyu Clan of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, Gitxaala First Nation, Wagmatcook First Nation, Innu of Labrador, Pikangikum First Nation, and many more. They include bands from the coast of Vancouver Island to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.
First you prepare for unrest......then you ***** the unrest. Shiri Pasternak works with Mariana Valverde. Tom
Cameras, sound cannons among G20 equipment Toronto police aim to keep
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY
Toronto police want to keep 52 of the 77 surveillance cameras they temporarily purchased for the G20 summit, more than tripling the force’s stock of CCTV equipment.
They would buy them back at half price from the federal government, which is footing the bill for G20 security.
The police also plan to buy back 400 of 5,200 sets of tactical safety gear, including helmets, gas masks and eye shields, as well as the three sound-cannon LRADs police acquired leading up to the summit.
The extra surveillance cameras, which would bring the Toronto Police Service’s total to 76 cameras, are needed in the city’s expanding entertainment district, said Police Chief Bill Blair. While he wouldn’t name specific areas he’d like to see the new cameras set up, he said areas of the city’s burgeoning, westward-expanding club district would be among the top on his list.
Sound cannons and more surveillance equipment. I thought the police only needed that to combat the Black Block, not the citizens of Toronto. Do the police get to determine this stuff on their own? Have the police proven themselves responsible enough to handle a weapon like the sound cannon? Tom
How to Spot a Terrorist
By JOHN FARMER Jr.
A YOUNG man walks into a Home Depot and buys a large quantity of acetone. Later, a young man walks into a beauty supply store and buys hydrogen peroxide. Still later, a young man is observed parked outside a nondescript federal building in a rented van, taking photographs.No crime has been committed. But should any of these activities (acetone and hydrogen peroxide can be components for explosives) be reported to and evaluated by law enforcement officials? If they are reported, the government may infringe on privacy and civil liberties. If they are not, we might not know until it’s too late whether it was the same young man in each instance. We might miss the next Timothy McVeigh.
This dilemma was at the heart of hearings before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, in which several federal officials warned that “homegrown terrorists” represent the nation’s greatest emerging threat. According to the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, Al Qaeda “has looked to recruit Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures.” This reality has led Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security, to conclude that “homeland security begins with hometown security.” And hometown security begins with locally based observations of “suspicious” activity. So, can we encourage such observation without also encouraging a disregard for privacy and constitutional rights?
This is a New York Times op-ed piece. Tom
White House Wants to Wiretap Internet Communications
The Obama administration is drawing up legislation to make it easier for US intelligence services to eavesdrop on the Internet, including email exchanges and social networks.
The Obama administration is drawing up legislation to make it easier for US intelligence services to eavesdrop on the Internet, including email exchanges and social networks, The New York Times said Monday.
The Obama administration is drawing up legislation to make it easier for US intelligence services to eavesdrop on the Internet, including email exchanges and social networks, The New York Times said Monday.
The White House intends to submit a bill before Congress next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically capable of complying with a wiretap order, including being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages, the Times reported.
The services would include encrypted email transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking websites like Facebook and peer-to-peer messaging software like Skype.
I'm seriously thinking of ditching my Obama t-shirts, as the Obama/Bush administration continues its war on civil liberties. Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)