Today's Article
Many experts say
the 'Civil Liberties
Oversight Board' is
failing its fellow
Americans.
the 'Civil Liberties
Oversight Board' is
failing its fellow
Americans.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Privacy Watchdogs Demand Probe Of Spying Program
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 11th, 2007
On Dec. 5th, civil liberties groups urged a federal advisory committee to aggressively investigate the Bush Administration's
program of wiretapping without warrants, arguing that oversight does not mean a blind deference to those in power.
This worry is the natural response of any thinking people to tyranny. Every tyrant insists he or she must ignore or destroy
liberties to protect "the people", who according to the tyrant are incapable of protecting themselves. But this poses a
dangerous question: "Who's protecting us from our self-appointed 'protector'?"
The White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, established by a 2004 intelligence law, has been
criticized since its inception for being little more than a "yes man" to the very executive branch of government it is
supposed to oversee. The panel has met privately 16 times, but December's session was its first public forum aimed at
soliciting comments from anyone outside the government with an expertise in civil liberties and privacy issues.
The oversight group heard from such experts as Indiana University cyber-security guru Fred Cate, Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) Executive Director Marc Rotenberg, Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security
in the Information Age member James Dempsey, Ohio State University privacy expert Peter Swire, and others.
Caroline Fredrickson, top lobbyist of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the group's first order of
business must be to review how the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies randomly target
innocent citizens and other lawful residents with its "anti-terrorism" efforts.
Fredrickson further urged the board to hold hearings open to the public, and to publish reports that pertain to key privacy
and civil liberties issues raised by new anti-terrorism efforts. She also asked the members to "candidly advise the
president" on the inherent problems of permitting government agencies to contract their spying efforts with private
companies like ChoicePoint.
Fredrickson said the board also should examine the implications of government watch lists, the growing number of names
on the lists, and the constitutional and legal implications for being put on them.
And don't think this is the sole concern of liberals. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene's speech
mirrored many of Fredrickson's concerns. Keene for instance stated that watch lists must not be used as "black lists" to
prevent any person from being considered for jobs or government benefits. The lists must only be utilized in situations
where "decisions must be made quickly, and grave consequences would follow from failure to screen out a listed person."
Last year's revelation of the so-called Automated Targeting System, which rates passengers based on risk, showed that
the government's use of watch lists is "even more expansive than we had imagined," Keene added. He also said that the
Bush Administration must act quickly to apply limits for the use of watch lists and adopt measures safeguarding the rights of
those who seek to clear their names.
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), an outspoken critic of the board who attended the meeting, said the panel "does not seem
poised to provide independent or objective advice to truly protect Americans' constitutional rights."
These are definite issues. A Nov. 12th, 2006 article of The American Spark revealed that intelligence and privacy experts
who reviewed the elements of Tangram--a planned domestic spying system being considered by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI)--have publicly stated that many of its computerized, so-called "terrorist-profiling methods" are hopelessly
ineffective, and may do little more than trample on the liberty of innocent citizens.
ACLU's Frederickson called the panel's public forum a welcome first step, but added that it was long overdue.
"Our democracy is at risk when unprecedented threats to privacy and civil liberties undertaken in the name of the 'war on
terror' go unanswered and unchecked."
She then added, "Clearly you've been fiddling while Rome burns."
Board Chairwoman Carol Dinkins replied the meeting was not a stand-alone event, but rather the beginning of an ongoing
discussion. This however failed to answer the question of liberals and conservatives alike: why has it taken this long, with
so much at stake?
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 11th, 2007
On Dec. 5th, civil liberties groups urged a federal advisory committee to aggressively investigate the Bush Administration's
program of wiretapping without warrants, arguing that oversight does not mean a blind deference to those in power.
This worry is the natural response of any thinking people to tyranny. Every tyrant insists he or she must ignore or destroy
liberties to protect "the people", who according to the tyrant are incapable of protecting themselves. But this poses a
dangerous question: "Who's protecting us from our self-appointed 'protector'?"
The White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, established by a 2004 intelligence law, has been
criticized since its inception for being little more than a "yes man" to the very executive branch of government it is
supposed to oversee. The panel has met privately 16 times, but December's session was its first public forum aimed at
soliciting comments from anyone outside the government with an expertise in civil liberties and privacy issues.
The oversight group heard from such experts as Indiana University cyber-security guru Fred Cate, Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) Executive Director Marc Rotenberg, Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security
in the Information Age member James Dempsey, Ohio State University privacy expert Peter Swire, and others.
Caroline Fredrickson, top lobbyist of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the group's first order of
business must be to review how the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies randomly target
innocent citizens and other lawful residents with its "anti-terrorism" efforts.
Fredrickson further urged the board to hold hearings open to the public, and to publish reports that pertain to key privacy
and civil liberties issues raised by new anti-terrorism efforts. She also asked the members to "candidly advise the
president" on the inherent problems of permitting government agencies to contract their spying efforts with private
companies like ChoicePoint.
Fredrickson said the board also should examine the implications of government watch lists, the growing number of names
on the lists, and the constitutional and legal implications for being put on them.
And don't think this is the sole concern of liberals. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene's speech
mirrored many of Fredrickson's concerns. Keene for instance stated that watch lists must not be used as "black lists" to
prevent any person from being considered for jobs or government benefits. The lists must only be utilized in situations
where "decisions must be made quickly, and grave consequences would follow from failure to screen out a listed person."
Last year's revelation of the so-called Automated Targeting System, which rates passengers based on risk, showed that
the government's use of watch lists is "even more expansive than we had imagined," Keene added. He also said that the
Bush Administration must act quickly to apply limits for the use of watch lists and adopt measures safeguarding the rights of
those who seek to clear their names.
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), an outspoken critic of the board who attended the meeting, said the panel "does not seem
poised to provide independent or objective advice to truly protect Americans' constitutional rights."
These are definite issues. A Nov. 12th, 2006 article of The American Spark revealed that intelligence and privacy experts
who reviewed the elements of Tangram--a planned domestic spying system being considered by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI)--have publicly stated that many of its computerized, so-called "terrorist-profiling methods" are hopelessly
ineffective, and may do little more than trample on the liberty of innocent citizens.
ACLU's Frederickson called the panel's public forum a welcome first step, but added that it was long overdue.
"Our democracy is at risk when unprecedented threats to privacy and civil liberties undertaken in the name of the 'war on
terror' go unanswered and unchecked."
She then added, "Clearly you've been fiddling while Rome burns."
Board Chairwoman Carol Dinkins replied the meeting was not a stand-alone event, but rather the beginning of an ongoing
discussion. This however failed to answer the question of liberals and conservatives alike: why has it taken this long, with
so much at stake?