Is Privacy Dead? 4 Government and Private Entities Conspiring to Track Everything You Do Online and Off
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Is Privacy Dead? 4 Government and Private Entities Conspiring to Track Everything You Do Online and Off

on

  • 315 views

The police-corporate surveillance “complex” is being ...

The police-corporate surveillance “complex” is being
consolidated, drawing ever-closer corporate tracking and
government surveillance.
Americans' personal privacy is being crushed by the rise of a
four-headed corporate-state surveillance system. The four
“heads” are: federal government agencies; state and local law
enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites & Internet “apps”
companies; and private data aggregators (sometimes referred
to as commercial data warehouses).

Statistics

Views

Total Views
315
Views on SlideShare
315
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Is Privacy Dead? 4 Government and Private Entities Conspiring to Track Everything You Do Online and Off Is Privacy Dead? 4 Government and Private Entities Conspiring to Track Everything You Do Online and Off Document Transcript

  • Is Privacy Dead? 4 Government and PrivateEntities Conspiring to Track Everything You DoOnline and OffDavid Rosenalternet.orgSeptember 12, 2012The police-corporate surveillance “complex” is beingconsolidated, drawing ever-closer corporate tracking andgovernment surveillance.Americans personal privacy is being crushed by the rise of afour-headed corporate-state surveillance system. The four“heads” are: federal government agencies; state and local lawenforcement entities; telecoms, web sites & Internet “apps”companies; and private data aggregators (sometimes referredto as commercial data warehouses).Conventional analysis treats these four domains of datagathering as separate and distinct; government agenciesfocus on security issues and corporate entities are concernedwith commerce. Some overlap can be expected as, forexample, in case of a terrorist attack or an online banking fraud. In both cases, an actual crimeoccurred.But what happens when the boundary separating or restricting corporate-state collaboration, e.g., anexceptional crime-fighting incident, erodes and becomes the taken-for-granted operating environment,the new normal? Perhaps most troubling, what happens when the traditional safeguards offered by“watchdog” courts or regulatory organizations no longer seem to matter? What does it say that theentities designed to protect personal privacy rights seem to have either been effectively “captured” orbecome toothless tigers?In President Eisenhower’s legendary 1960 farewell address, he warned of the potential power of themilitary-industrial complex. Ike’s 20th century formulation represented the intertwining of the U.S.military and private contractors to achieve two complementary goals. First, it sought to helpcorporations make guaranteed, cost-plus profits and to provide glide-path retirement programs for themilitary brass. Second, it sought to influence Congress and thus shape foreign policy, helping fulfillthe then just-emerging global imperialist strategy. Today’s corporate-state surveillance complex demonstrates a comparable intertwining of U.S. policing forces and private companies in the monitoring of domestic life. It is being implemented thanks to the technology fruits of a half-century of the military-industrial complex. The Defense Department created the Internet and what it can do in Yemen it can do in Oakland. The global war on terrorism is coming home!
  • In the wake of the Great Recession, we are livingthrough a great economic and social restructuring.The global world order is shifting and, accordingly,America’s class and social relations are beingreordered. Occupy Wall Street’s formulation of thesocial crisis, the 1% vs. the 99%, has become theshorthand descriptor of this restructuring ofAmerican economic relations. No time is better toimpose high-tech social disciple then one markedby economic and social crisis. The unansweredquestion is obvious: Are we witnessing theformation of the high-tech police state?To reiterate, the four-headed corporate-statesurveillance hydra consists of (i) federal agencies; (ii) state and local law enforcement entities; (iii)telecoms, web sites & Internet “apps” companies; and (iv) private data aggregators. The followingoverview sketches out the parameters of the ever-growing domestic spy state, how it’s beingimplemented and some of the more egregious examples of abuse of public trust if not the law.#1 -- Federal SurveillanceThe attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent (and endless) “war on terror” continue to provide the rationalefor an ever-expanding domestic security state. The leading agencies gathering data on Americans (andothers) include the National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) andDepartment of Defense (DoD) as well as the FBI and IRS. In the wake of 9/11, the NSA took the leadin federal domestic cyber surveillance, but in 2010 the NSA ceded this authority to the DHS.Personal information is gathered from a host of both public and private sources. One source is “publicrecords” that can range from birth, marriage and death records; court filings, arrest records, driverslicense information, property ownership registrations (e.g., car or house), tax records, professionallicenses and even Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Another source is “private” recordsfrom ChoicePoint and LexisNexis as well as credit reporting agencies such as Equifax, ExperianInformation Solutions and Trans Union LLC.The most Kafkaesque example of federal tracking efforts has been the DHS Transportation and SafetyAdministration’s (TSA) No-Fly List. As of 2011, it was estimated to contain about 10,000 names. Thelist’s inherent absurdity was illustrated when, some years before his death, Ted Kennedy discovered he(as “T. Kennedy”) was on the list. The No-Fly List is administered by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) which cannot reveal whether a particular person is on the list, nor does it have the authority to remove someone from the list -- thats up to the FBI. The TSC also manages what is known as the Terrorist Watch List. Administered by the FBI, the list, according to an ACLU estimate, consists of 1 million names and is continually expanding. DHS also maintains the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) that has the fingerprints, photographs and biographical information on 126 million people.
  • During the July 4, 2012, holiday weekend,Pres. Obama quietly released a newExecutive Order, “Assignment of NationalSecurity and Emergency PreparednessCommunications Functions.” Whileostensibly seeking to ensure the continuity ofgovernment communications during anational emergency, it grants new powers tothe DHS over telecom. It permits the agencyto collect public communications informationand the authority to seize private facilitieswhen necessary. The Executive Order islegislation through the back door, the ObamaAdministration’s effort to implement a lawthat Congress rejected in 2011.Parallel to the DHS efforts, the FBI maintainsa number of operations tracking Americans.The Integrated Automated FingerprintIdentification System (IAFIS) keepsfingerprint records of some 62 millionpeople; it makes this resource available to 43states and 5 other federal agencies. Soon, theagency will switch over to the NGI (NextGeneration Initiative), which will contain facerecognition searchable photos, iris scans,fingerprints, palm prints, and a record of scarsand tatoos. The FBI coordinates theCombined DNA Index System (CODIS)that has DNA evidence from blood and salivasample on more than 10 million people. In addition, the FBI maintains the Nationwide SuspiciousActivity Reporting Initiative (SAR) that includes some 160,000 reports on people who allegedly actedsuspiciously.(These activities are separate from the recent revelation from AntiSec that found on a FBI agentlaptop a database of 12 million Apple device owners’ users unique identify, including owners personalinformation.)In 2004, Congress established the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to serve as the “center forjoint operational planning and joint intelligence, staffed by personnel from the various agencies.” Itmaintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) that includes records on an estimated740,000 people. Federal authorities claim that less than 2 percent of the people on file are US citizensor legal permanent residents. Earlier this year, Att. Gen. Eric Holder extended the agency’s ability tomaintain private information about U.S. citizens when there is no suspicion that they are involved interrorism from 180 days to five years.The NSA’s authority overrides 4th Amendment guarantees safeguarding a citizen’s right fromunreasonable search and seizure through what is known as a National Security Letter (NSL). In 2008,Congress revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act freeing the NSA from the bothersomerequirement of having to prove probable cause before intercepting a person’s phone calls, textmessages or emails from someone in the U.S. suspected of involvement with terrorism. Between 2000
  • and 2010 (excluding 2001 and 2002 for which no records areavailable), the FBI was issued 273,122 NSLs; in 2010,24,287 letters were issued pertaining to 14,000 U.S.residents.In June 2011, the DoD originally launched a pilot program,the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Pilot, with 20private companies. It would allow intelligence agencies toshare threat information with private military contractors.Among the companies who participated were LockheedMartin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon as well as telcosAT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink. The telcos filter incoming email for malicious software. In May2012, DoD and DHS announced plans to expand the program to 200 participants and the DoDestimates that approximately 8,000 firms could potentially participate.DoD is aggressively promoting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA),which recently passed the House and is now before the Senate. Under this law, there would be a significant expansion in sharing of information related to “cyber hacking” (a very ill-defined term) between federal agencies, including DoD, NSA and DHS, and private companies. The information to be shared would cover both classified and unclassified data. The ostensible purpose of such data sharing would be to protect the nation’s telecom networks and customers from hack-attacks. Sure. #2 -- State and Local Law Enforcement On July 9th, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) released the first set of findings from the House’s Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus. It found that over 1.3 million federal, state and local law enforcement data requests were made to cellphone companies for personal records in 2011. Among the tracking information provided to law enforcement entities were: geo-locational or GPS data, 911 call responses, text message content, billing records, wiretaps, PING location data and what are known as cell tower “dumps” (i.e., a carrier providesall the phones numbers of cell users that connect with a discrete tower during a discrete period oftime).In a separate and equally revealing disclosure, the ACLU found that, based on records from over200 local law enforcement agencies, most law enforcement groups that engaged in cell-phone tracking
  • did not obtain a warrant, subpoena or other court order. The Associated Press received a 2011 Pulitzer Prize for revealing the role played by the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) secret demographics unit. It undertook a federally funded, multi-million-dollar, multi-state surveillance program of Muslims in the metro-NY area, involving citizens and noncitizens alike. Most recently, the AP reported that, based on the testimony of one of the program’s senior executives, the NYPD failed to identify a single attack or threat.Another NYPD anti-terrorist program is known as the Domain Awareness System (DAS). It wasdeveloped as a commercial partnership between the NYPD and Microsoft at an estimated cost of $30 to$40 million. With DAS, investigators can track individuals or incidents (e.g., a suspicious package)through live video feeds from some 3,000 CCTV cameras, 2,600 radiation substance detectors, checklicense plate numbers, pull up crime reports and cross-check all information against criminal andterrorist databases. Big Brother has become America’s new normal. One area in which local government and private interests come together involves automatic license plate recognition. In New York and other cities through the country, LPR cameras are being mounted on lampposts, bridges and police patrol cars and capture images of license plates. These photos are a being shared with the National Insurance Crime Bureau that represents hundreds of insurance companies. Thus, private location data of U.S. citizens are being acquired and shared with commercial entities without their knowledge or consent. #3 – Telecom, Web Sites & Internet “Apps” Companies Rep. Markey disclosure revealed a lucrative scheme involving the security state outsourcing data gathering to ten major telecommunications companies,including AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. These companies made million of dollars supplying lawenforcement agencies with personal telecom information.However, a far bigger issue involves most of the major websites, including Google, Facebook, Amazonand iTunes, that systematically collect user data and commercializes it for corporate purposes; thetelecoms engage in the same practice.Many web companies fulfill government requests for a user’s personal information, but Google is one
  • of the few companies that publicly reveal such requests. Most recently, it reported that during thesecond-half of 2011, U.S. government agencies made 12,243 requests and that it complied with 93percent of them (11,386). This is 1,000 a month; what’s going on?Wireless devices are two-way technologies. In addition to uploaded valuable personal data, wirelesscustomers are sitting ducks for downloaded junk. Most smartphone users are unaware that when theydownload a “free” app they are downloading a Trojan horse.According to a recent study by Lookout Mobile Security, more than half of the free apps embedadvertising in their offerings and that these offerings are provided by ad networks. It estimates that 5percent of all smartphone apps (representing 80 million downloads) are embedded with "aggressive" adnetworks that can change bookmark settings and deliver ads outside the app they are embedded in.Games, and especially Google Play, had the highest rate of ad placements. The data from all these appsare being collected, analyzed and exploited for commercial gain.
  • #4 – Private Data Aggregators Private sectortracking can be divided between three typesof companies. One consists of thosecompanies that facilitate commercialtransactions, the ostensible bank like Visa orPayPal. A second consists of the ad agencies(most notably Google) that capture personaldata through “click-throughs” and “cookies.”Finally, private data aggregators likeChoicePoint, Intelius, Lexis Nexis and USSearch Profile that collect personal data,repackage it and offering it for sale. Theyacquire, slice & dice your personalinformation as if they were running sausagefactories – and your personal life is theunlucky pig Together, they prove that nothingprivate is secret: the whole world is watching!These companies track one’s every keystroke,every order and bill payment one makes,every word and/or phrase in one’s emails,even one’s every mobile movement throughGPS tracking. Data capture involveseverything from your personal Social Securitynumber, phone calls, arrest record, credit cardtransactions and online viewing preferencesas well as your medical and insurance recordsand even personal prescriptions.The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and reserved privacy to a citizen’s person, homeand property; the 4th Amendment prohibits illegal search and seizure. In the intervening 225 years,the notion of personal privacy has been radically transformed, especially in light of technologicaladvances and the globalization of the marketplace. It was written in a pre-industrial, agrarian era andinforms decisions made in a post-modern world.Today, the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision, Katz v. U.S. (389 US 347), is all but forgotten. Itestablished a link between the modes of telecommunication and personal privacy that illuminatestoday’s debate over the limits of privacy in the post-modern age.In this case, Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to place illegal gambling bets. In writing forthe majority, Justice Potter Stewart noted, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the doorbehind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the wordshe utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.”Does someone making a call on a wireless device today have comparable rights as someone in a phonebooth a half-century ago? Are the keystrokes an individual enters on a personal computer or asmartphone equivalent to an old-fashion voice call? And what of the personal information anindividual provides to a 3rd party like a credit-card company, insurance company and telephone,wireless and Internet service provider?The Katz decision was farsighted for the mid-20th century and one can only hope that its insight will
  • inform the debate over 21st century digital technology and communications. More so, it serves as ananalogy for contemporary notions ofsocial life and their reasonableexpectations of privacy.However, war has long provided therationale for the imposition of statetyranny. World War I hysteria foundexpression in the Espionage Act of1917 and the Palmer Raids of 1920;World War II hysteria resulted in themass roundup and imprisonment of120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans; the Cold War gave usanti-Communism.One consequence of 9/11 is thatConstitutionally protected privacyrights have come under increasingthreat from both private corporationsand government entities. These twodomains, the private and the state,traditionally function as separate, ifnot parallel, worlds. Since 9/11, bothdomains have not only been verybusy collecting raw digital and otherinformation on ordinary Americans, but have increasingly joined forces.In the marketplace of valued data, one’s digital self (or selves) is increasingly being sliced and diced,collated and repackaged, as an ever more exact commodity. Nothing about a person’s electronic self,whether a credit-card purchase, parking ticket, GPS location, medical record or viewing practices, isprivate. The military-industrial complex formalized the fiction that separates the corporate and thefederal, serving as the revolving door for deals mae and rewarded. A permanent militarized state isnow engaged in wars against “terrorists,” good-old foreign cyber-espionage with China, Iran, Russiaand others, battles with criminal gangs, cyber hackers (like Anonymous) and whistle-blowers. Thesame technologies being employed to fight the war on terror internationally are being imposed onAmericans in their most private, personal lives.The police-corporate surveillance “complex” is being consolidated, drawing ever-closer corporatetracking and government surveillance. These entities collect data sent from different devices, that takesdifferent forms and use different distribution networks. Such devices include a phone or smartphone,PC or tablet; they are separate from the network one employs, whether wireline, wireless or cable; andare distinct from the type of information one communicates, from email message, commercialtransaction and social network connection to video download and medical records. Nevertheless, inour increasingly digitally mediated universe, all 1s and 0s are alike.Today, nearly all the personal data gathering that takes place does so under one of two conditions.First, it is done by a consumer under the “terms of use” required by a take-it-or-leave-it offer forwhatever service is offered (e.g., making a call, use of an iPhone, doing a Google search, ordering abook through Amazon). Second, it is ostensibly done “legally” by a law enforcement agency with acourt order (or without such legal niceties).
  • The line between the corporate and the government iseroding. There seems to be a widening two-way streetbetween law-enforcement entities (both federal or local)and private companies over information sharing. One formof working relation is ostensibly passive, a fee for servicearrangement, as when a telco provides a user’s GPStracking data or Google supplies user data. Theinformation is provided when the company receives acourt-approved request. However, as the ACLU found,cordial relations between law enforcement entities andtelecoms often bypass legal niceties.A second form of information sharing comes from themore traditional out-sourcing deal, the apparent collusionbetween a federal government agency and one of its formerspymasters, former CIA director Richard Helms. HisVirginia-based company, Abraxas Corp., created TrapWire correlates video surveillance with otherdata, including criminal and terrorist watch lists, facial recognition profiles, license plate information,stolen vehicles reports and other event data. It was acquired by San Diego-based, Cubic Corp., in 2010for $124 million in cash.
  • A third form is the partnership, a for-profit venture between a local government and a major corporation. Welcome to Domain Awareness System in which the NYPD and Microsoft entered into a commercial venture. A flurry of press releases and TV appearances promoted the venture of Mayor Bloomberg 21st century capitalism. It would be interesting to examine the final financial projections to see what New York’s rate-of- return would be given its estimated $30 to $40 million investment. Earlier this year, in Jones v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that the police are required to get a warrant before attaching a Global Position System (GPS) device a suspect’s car. In its decision, the Court rejected the Obama Justice Department’s claim that citizens have no expectation of privacy in public places. This decision may provide the rationale for a redrawing of the lines protecting privacy, communication and personal information. David Rosen writes the Media Current blog for Filmmaker and regularly contributes to CounterPunch, Huffington Post and the Brooklyn Rail. Check out DavidRosenWrites; he can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net.http://www.infowars.com/