The most painful part of this article to me is this one quote:
"The Justice Department did not return a call for comment."
Our own government is, once again, not holding itself accountable to the people or the fourth estate. Is it any wonder then that organizations like WikiLeaks exist that perform the function that the fourth estate is failing in?
(EDIT: Yes, I realize that WikiLeaks mission is somewhat different from the fourth estate but even so.)
[0] He heard about this in 2005 (when the government was run by a different administration) but couldn't find anything. Eventually he filed a FOIA request. Silence, until spring of last year, when he was told there was some some information but it was redacted. So he filed an appeal, and it was granted. I suspect the lack of DoJ comment is because they're still trying to find out whether it was a fully formed program or just junior official's bid for career visibility - I suspect the latter, given the extremely basic level of information on these slides and lack of other documentation.
It's unclear whether the question left with the DoJ was about this 'hotwatch' project or about administrative subpoenas in general. An AS is a request for infor information issued by a government agency under statutory authority (ie Congress passed a law specifically saying an agency may issue one in an investigation and it must be complied with). About 300 government agencies are empowered to issue them altogether, although usually within a narrowly defined scope. The obvious constitutional problems with administrative subpoenas have been known for some time [1]. Misuse of such procedures has resulted in disciplinary proceedings at the FBI, among other agencies [2].
The basic thing to remember is that legally speaking warrants are not required for this kind of information gathering because it does not constitute a search [3] - as a legal term, this may not always mean what you think it means. for example, your phone conversations are generally private and require a warrant to listen to, but the numbers you call are not, and subpoena-ing that information from your phone service provider is not a search - at least, so said the Supreme Court in 1979 and neither it nor Congress have seen fit to decide otherwise since then [4]. This manner of gathering information is not actually new at all, as subpoena powers go back a lot farther than 1979 - that's just the last time their legality was debated in this context.
Some people think the options available to law enforcement should be much stronger, of course [5]. But in the meantime, relax - the sky is not in fact falling and things have not taken a sudden drastic turn for the worse.
Having worked for a bank, I'm shocked that they managed to build a product that offers no business value but requires actual technical expertise to implement.
Now that I think about it... it's probably an Excel spreadsheet...
I upgraded a Visa Level 1 merchant's credit card system a few years ago. It was an unholy mess of C++ servers, Java servers, large amounts of semi-comprehensible PL/SQL, and Korn shell scripts. Real time authorization was handled by one system, and end-of-day settlement was handled by a very different system, under a different director.
I wouldn't be at all surprised that the "real time" data the feds get is very nearly worthless. It's probably patchy and intermittent, and varies greatly in timeliness. The document says that "open ended" systems (Visa and MasterCard) depend on issuing banks, which is certainly true, but the merchants can also contribute greatly to delays in getting data in. The Level 1 merchant did something called "Assumed Approval" when it lost contact with the payment provider. Since about 96% of all authorization requests got approved, it would just assume that all auth requests got approvals when network problems prevented actually getting approvals. The feds wouldn't find out about those transactions until end-of-day settlement.
"For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, followed up by a order from a judge that the surveillance not be disclosed."
The information was in a Power Point presentation Chris Soghoian FOIA'ed. Good reporting once again by Ryan Singel.
What really upsets me about ALL these things is that it seems highly unlikely any of these privacy violations would have caught any known terrorists, foreign or domestic.
It's just lazy law enforcement covering itself so it has an after-the-fact method to hunt people down easily, just like all the security cameras in the UK are not to actively prevent crime, but just to have a trail afterwards.
It would seem that this makes it significantly easier to stay under the radar -- simply set up your credit cards to suggest a very normal life and then use cash for any illicit activities.
And, if a group of people (such as a terrorist cell) wanted to, it would be easy to deliberately create a paper trail to mislead authorities.
You get promoted based on how many cases you solve, not how many difficult cases you solve. If you are smarter than the average criminal, you probably stand a less-than-average chance of being caught.
because the authorities have no control over the supply of cash, would never try to outlaw cash, or never require banks to report the withdrawal or deposit of cash.
You know, you can walk into a bank and withdraw a wad of cash without a fee.
I went for a couple of years at an employer, walking my paycheck to the credit union each payday and simply cashing it. I'd deposit enough for writing checks for bills, but I otherwise started every other week with $2k in my pocket. Then they mandated direct-deposit, so I got lazy and my large cash withdraws became less and less frequent.
It seems like we are waking up to a bad dream that the US government is increasing the Skynet in the Terminator movies..
They track you, bug you, infiltrate , and than order drones to bomb the heck out of you..
The sad thing is its not the Government's fault. We as voters let this happen in not opposing the interests of the Military-Industrial-Financial complex with real votes on the issues..
It's not the voters fault; it's a systemic fault. Once you accept that violence can be used to force people to take certain actions; and that its proper place is not only as last resort for self defense you accept a system that will continually gain more power and use force more and more. People need to realize that the use of force, and living at the expense of another is not sustainable and will eventually collapse.
In our winner-take-all electoral system, the voters are only given two viable choices, neither of which represents their own views. So our leaders are basically determined by who spends the most money in DC, with two options so life is simple for lobbyists and each party has competition. The system, quite accidentally, is designed for those who milk government, not those who pay the bills.
This system can be replaced, but given our Constitution, change is unlikely to happen to begin in DC. I think some sort of competing decision making system that is more trusted and uses proportional representation will have to be implemented that can then press for change.
Such a system would have no legal authority, but if highly trusted and transparent, it could have the moral authority to demand changes to the real electoral system. Especially if most people see the system consistently produce better decisions than Congress. That part's easy.
The trick is getting people to use such a system. Perhaps starting on the local or state level.
> We as voters let this happen in not opposing the interests of the Military-Industrial-Financial complex with real votes on the issues..
It's not that simple - one thing people to fail to realize is that when you authorize extraordinary powers for your own favorite causes, they'll inevitably be used for other worse causes as well.
It's not military/industrial/financial - even things as simple as letting the government take a driver's license for not paying child support means that there's now a precedent for denying someone's right to mobility for punitive reasons unrelated to actually operating a car. People support this when it's to get those no-good child support dodgers, but then they're shocked when this is broadly expanded to other civil offenses where they wouldn't support it.
People are naive. They think, "Oh, the Democrats will reverse the Republican's terrible policies when they get in." No they won't. They'll co-opt the power for their causes, and vice-versa. It's not clear which party is responsible for starting the reckless deficit spending, but now they both do it. They both give employment and money to sectors that support them. (Republicans in military, Democrats in social causes)
But don't be fooled for a minute that the excessive powers the Republicans authorize for the first time won't be taken up by the Democrats. And the excessive powers the Democrats take up will be used by Republicans.
It's not any one sector. Excessive government powers anywhere leads to excessive government power everywhere.
(And note - the Democrats are the banner-leaders in censoring and spying on the internet - I don't think that's because the Democrats are worse, but rather because I don't think the Republicans understand the internet. So it's not exactly military/financial/industrial that's doing this one)
No matter who you vote for, the lobbyists and military/intel institutions run things from behind the scenes. Until the public at large realizes this, they'll retain false hopes.
[+] [-] sleight42|15 years ago|reply
"The Justice Department did not return a call for comment."
Our own government is, once again, not holding itself accountable to the people or the fourth estate. Is it any wonder then that organizations like WikiLeaks exist that perform the function that the fourth estate is failing in?
(EDIT: Yes, I realize that WikiLeaks mission is somewhat different from the fourth estate but even so.)
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
It's unclear whether the question left with the DoJ was about this 'hotwatch' project or about administrative subpoenas in general. An AS is a request for infor information issued by a government agency under statutory authority (ie Congress passed a law specifically saying an agency may issue one in an investigation and it must be complied with). About 300 government agencies are empowered to issue them altogether, although usually within a narrowly defined scope. The obvious constitutional problems with administrative subpoenas have been known for some time [1]. Misuse of such procedures has resulted in disciplinary proceedings at the FBI, among other agencies [2].
The basic thing to remember is that legally speaking warrants are not required for this kind of information gathering because it does not constitute a search [3] - as a legal term, this may not always mean what you think it means. for example, your phone conversations are generally private and require a warrant to listen to, but the numbers you call are not, and subpoena-ing that information from your phone service provider is not a search - at least, so said the Supreme Court in 1979 and neither it nor Congress have seen fit to decide otherwise since then [4]. This manner of gathering information is not actually new at all, as subpoena powers go back a lot farther than 1979 - that's just the last time their legality was debated in this context.
Some people think the options available to law enforcement should be much stronger, of course [5]. But in the meantime, relax - the sky is not in fact falling and things have not taken a sudden drastic turn for the worse.
0. http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2010/12/dojs-hotwatch-real-time-... 1. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS22407.pdf 2. http://www.justice.gov/oig/testimony/t1004.pdf 3. http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/05/administrative-subpoe... 4. http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2007/09/fourth-amendment-priv... 5. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0Eiic5n5QFcJ:w... < sorry, original is 404ed
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
Now that I think about it... it's probably an Excel spreadsheet...
[+] [-] bediger|15 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be at all surprised that the "real time" data the feds get is very nearly worthless. It's probably patchy and intermittent, and varies greatly in timeliness. The document says that "open ended" systems (Visa and MasterCard) depend on issuing banks, which is certainly true, but the merchants can also contribute greatly to delays in getting data in. The Level 1 merchant did something called "Assumed Approval" when it lost contact with the payment provider. Since about 96% of all authorization requests got approved, it would just assume that all auth requests got approvals when network problems prevented actually getting approvals. The feds wouldn't find out about those transactions until end-of-day settlement.
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
The information was in a Power Point presentation Chris Soghoian FOIA'ed. Good reporting once again by Ryan Singel.
[+] [-] joebananas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
It's just lazy law enforcement covering itself so it has an after-the-fact method to hunt people down easily, just like all the security cameras in the UK are not to actively prevent crime, but just to have a trail afterwards.
[+] [-] grandalf|15 years ago|reply
And, if a group of people (such as a terrorist cell) wanted to, it would be easy to deliberately create a paper trail to mislead authorities.
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sielskr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrover|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SageRaven|15 years ago|reply
I went for a couple of years at an employer, walking my paycheck to the credit union each payday and simply cashing it. I'd deposit enough for writing checks for bills, but I otherwise started every other week with $2k in my pocket. Then they mandated direct-deposit, so I got lazy and my large cash withdraws became less and less frequent.
[+] [-] burgerbrain|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Natsu|15 years ago|reply
But I did it because I didn't want the credit card companies to have every detail about my life.
[+] [-] shareme|15 years ago|reply
They track you, bug you, infiltrate , and than order drones to bomb the heck out of you..
The sad thing is its not the Government's fault. We as voters let this happen in not opposing the interests of the Military-Industrial-Financial complex with real votes on the issues..
[+] [-] dantheman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stretchwithme|15 years ago|reply
In our winner-take-all electoral system, the voters are only given two viable choices, neither of which represents their own views. So our leaders are basically determined by who spends the most money in DC, with two options so life is simple for lobbyists and each party has competition. The system, quite accidentally, is designed for those who milk government, not those who pay the bills.
This system can be replaced, but given our Constitution, change is unlikely to happen to begin in DC. I think some sort of competing decision making system that is more trusted and uses proportional representation will have to be implemented that can then press for change.
Such a system would have no legal authority, but if highly trusted and transparent, it could have the moral authority to demand changes to the real electoral system. Especially if most people see the system consistently produce better decisions than Congress. That part's easy.
The trick is getting people to use such a system. Perhaps starting on the local or state level.
Any ideas?
[+] [-] lionhearted|15 years ago|reply
It's not that simple - one thing people to fail to realize is that when you authorize extraordinary powers for your own favorite causes, they'll inevitably be used for other worse causes as well.
It's not military/industrial/financial - even things as simple as letting the government take a driver's license for not paying child support means that there's now a precedent for denying someone's right to mobility for punitive reasons unrelated to actually operating a car. People support this when it's to get those no-good child support dodgers, but then they're shocked when this is broadly expanded to other civil offenses where they wouldn't support it.
People are naive. They think, "Oh, the Democrats will reverse the Republican's terrible policies when they get in." No they won't. They'll co-opt the power for their causes, and vice-versa. It's not clear which party is responsible for starting the reckless deficit spending, but now they both do it. They both give employment and money to sectors that support them. (Republicans in military, Democrats in social causes)
But don't be fooled for a minute that the excessive powers the Republicans authorize for the first time won't be taken up by the Democrats. And the excessive powers the Democrats take up will be used by Republicans.
It's not any one sector. Excessive government powers anywhere leads to excessive government power everywhere.
(And note - the Democrats are the banner-leaders in censoring and spying on the internet - I don't think that's because the Democrats are worse, but rather because I don't think the Republicans understand the internet. So it's not exactly military/financial/industrial that's doing this one)
[+] [-] mcantelon|15 years ago|reply