Today's Article
Perhaps Homeland
Security needs to be
reminded that
people without rights
are people without
any security
whatsoever.
Security needs to be
reminded that
people without rights
are people without
any security
whatsoever.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Homeland Security Hiding Records of Black Hole Targets
By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 24th, 2010
When Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974, it ruled that each person's right to privacy is fundamental to a
working democracy and that this right is recognized by the U.S. Constitution. It also declared that each
individual's privacy is harmed by the federal government's collection, use, maintenance and dissemination of
personal data.
The Privacy Act put into place numerous federal standards for the collection and maintenance of personal
information. But a recent move by the Homeland Security Department, and published in the Federal Register,
make take much of the teeth out of that legislation.
The 1974 law established such standards as:
So what has Homeland Security done? The American Spark quotes the summary of the Federal Register
statement:
As the Federal Register makes clear, this system of records originally was titled, "Department of Homeland
Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--011 Removable Alien Records System of Records."
That seems more honest, if nothing else.
Neither the Homeland Security Department nor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are doing
anything wrong--at least in a strictly legal sense. The Privacy Act permits federal exemptions from its
requirements in certain cases where there is thought to be a 'serious need' for such an exemption, provided
that need has been acknowledged by a specific statutory authority.
Notice the exemption appears to be for single cases, which indeed may merit special consideration. But ICE is
claiming a blanket exemption, covering an entire system of records on individuals.
We'll leave aside the fact that other government agencies conduct investigations just as important as those
considered by ICE, and apparently without having to claim such a blanket exemption from the 1974 Privacy Act.
What most immediately bothers us at the Spark is the possible setting of precedence. For it appears that ICE
is claiming a blanket right to investigate any 'suspicious' U.S. resident, without the knowledge, consent or
oversight of the person being investigated--or without the oversight of any other citizen or resident, for that
matter.
We feel that's far too much uncontested power for government officials to have, however noble their intentions.
Even the concept behind the move is potentially dangerous, for it assumes the faulty notion that American
citizens and residents somehow are more 'safe' if their Natural Rights are ignored by federal and state
governments.
The problem with that logic? The rights of a citizen or resident constitute the only real security that person
possesses in this life.
Thus it's a fallacy to discuss government investigations in terms of 'freedom vs. security'. People without rights
are people without any security whatsoever.
Our view? It's time for American citizens and residents to begin keeping some of that security.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 24th, 2010
When Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974, it ruled that each person's right to privacy is fundamental to a
working democracy and that this right is recognized by the U.S. Constitution. It also declared that each
individual's privacy is harmed by the federal government's collection, use, maintenance and dissemination of
personal data.
The Privacy Act put into place numerous federal standards for the collection and maintenance of personal
information. But a recent move by the Homeland Security Department, and published in the Federal Register,
make take much of the teeth out of that legislation.
The 1974 law established such standards as:
- 1. The recognition of an individual's right to determine what data about him the feds are collecting,
maintaining, using, or disseminating;
2. Recognition of an individual's right to access any personal information held in federal agency files, as
well as the right to demand a copy of any or all records, and to amend or correct these records;
3. The assurance that federal collection, use, maintenance, or dissemination of any identifiable personal
information is performed for a necessary and legal purpose, that the info is reasonably up-to-date and
accurate, and that proper procedures exist to prevent abuse of any data collection.
So what has Homeland Security done? The American Spark quotes the summary of the Federal Register
statement:
- The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions
of a Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement system of records...
from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement--011 Immigration and Enforcement Operational Records
system from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative
enforcement requirements.
As the Federal Register makes clear, this system of records originally was titled, "Department of Homeland
Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--011 Removable Alien Records System of Records."
That seems more honest, if nothing else.
Neither the Homeland Security Department nor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are doing
anything wrong--at least in a strictly legal sense. The Privacy Act permits federal exemptions from its
requirements in certain cases where there is thought to be a 'serious need' for such an exemption, provided
that need has been acknowledged by a specific statutory authority.
Notice the exemption appears to be for single cases, which indeed may merit special consideration. But ICE is
claiming a blanket exemption, covering an entire system of records on individuals.
We'll leave aside the fact that other government agencies conduct investigations just as important as those
considered by ICE, and apparently without having to claim such a blanket exemption from the 1974 Privacy Act.
What most immediately bothers us at the Spark is the possible setting of precedence. For it appears that ICE
is claiming a blanket right to investigate any 'suspicious' U.S. resident, without the knowledge, consent or
oversight of the person being investigated--or without the oversight of any other citizen or resident, for that
matter.
We feel that's far too much uncontested power for government officials to have, however noble their intentions.
Even the concept behind the move is potentially dangerous, for it assumes the faulty notion that American
citizens and residents somehow are more 'safe' if their Natural Rights are ignored by federal and state
governments.
The problem with that logic? The rights of a citizen or resident constitute the only real security that person
possesses in this life.
Thus it's a fallacy to discuss government investigations in terms of 'freedom vs. security'. People without rights
are people without any security whatsoever.
Our view? It's time for American citizens and residents to begin keeping some of that security.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!