News: In more public places, cameras are on watch

Globe correspondent Connie Paige quotes our Staff Attorney, Sarah Wunsch, in this story on the growing use of surveillance cameras.

"We used to think of the United States as a place where the government was not spying on citizens," she says, as part of our overall concerns.

News: ACLU queries Harvard's police

Reporter David Abel of the Boston Globe has written this story on our work to find out why the Harvard University Police Department has apparently been using an undercover photographer to take pictures of political protestors. The story quotes John Reinstein, our Legal Director, and refers to the fact that the ACLU of Massachusetts is representing two protestors who were arrested in March after trying to take pictures of Harvard's undercover photographer himself.

We'd like to know what they're doing and why, and whether Harvard is part of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, which some other schools around the country have joined.

Reporter Jamison A Hill of the Harvard Crimson broke the story yesterday, and followed up today with an HUPD rebuttal that raises new questions.

Counter-terrorism expert Mike German on Boston-area radio Saturday

As a 16-year federal law enforcement veteran, Mike German knows his stuff. As a former FBI Special Agent, he twice infiltrated neo-Nazi groups (using constitutionally sound methods) to prevent terrorist attacks. But he left the FBI to make Congress and the public aware of deficiencies in U.S. counterterrorism operations.

Today German serves as Policy Counsel for the ACLU and is the author of Thinking Like A Terrorist.

On Saturday, March 29, at 10am, he'll be on the Samantha Clemens Show, 91.5 WMFO Medford, to talk about Fusion Centers, the federally funded domestic intelligence centers that are collecting personal data about all of us, with little or no oversight.

I've heard Mike speak a couple of times, and he does a great job of puncturing the supposed need for the government to sweep away civil liberties in the name of the "War on Terror."

UPDATE:

Audio from the show is available here.

Security breach at the Pentagon

George Jenkins blogs in detail about a huge security breach at the Pentagon last year.

It makes you wonder: if data at the Pentagon, of all places, can't be kept secure, then how can anyone reasonably expect that information held in databases for the Real ID national identity card, or at the Fusion Centers, will be any less vulnerable?

Government Surveillance 101

The Wall Street Journal has provided this excellent overview of government surveillance efforts and the concerns they raise.

Meanwhile, DailyKos blogger mcjoan has just written about the ACLU's reponse to the WSJ article, including more on the scope of the program (at least as much as we know about it) and a Freedom of Information Act request to find out more about aspects of the WSJ story.

News: Safer Homes Program Questioned

Since Boston police first floated the idea last fall, we've gotten dozens of media inquiries about the proposed "Safe Homes" program. It would ask people in select neighborhoods to "voluntarily" open their doors to police searches for guns.

Boston Channel 5 reporter Rhondella Richardson explores the ongoing controversy in this report. She talks to people like a concerned parent, who says she would support the program because she wants her kids to be safe. Another wonders what would really happen if the police found a gun in their home: "Am I safe, or am I not safe? You gotta think."

Richardson also interviews Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, and about the civil liberties implications of the controversial program. The ACLU has been raising concerns about "Safe Homes" from the start, and has distributed this fact sheet in English and Spanish. It's about the right to say no to a warrantless search, and the rights that you might give up if you said yes.

A key danger in "Safe Homes"

On Monday, Bianca Vazquez Toness of WBUR did
a really interesting story that underscores the difficulty the police can face earning the trust of local communities.

One of the reasons the police "are looking to build trust in high-crime neighborhoods," as Vazquez Toness says, is for the proposed "Safe Homes" initiative, in which Boston police plan on going door-to-door in high-crime neighborhoods, asking people to open their doors to "voluntary" searches for guns.

The ACLU of Massachusetts is concerned that people won't understand they have the right to say "no" to these searches, or that anything illegal the police find in the searches (guns, drugs, etc.) can lead to arrests and criminal charges against anyone in the home, including children. This isn't like programs which simply aim to take guns out of circulation, with no questions asked.

In other words, a key danger in "Safe Homes" is the erosion of trust. People could waive their rights to help tackle gun violence, but then feel betrayed if members of their families are hauled off to jail or are suspended or expelled from school, instead of simply having to turn over a gun -- or even if no guns were found at all.

An ACLU of Massachusetts briefing paper with more information on "Safe Homes" is available here.

News: Police Safe Homes plan leads to heated debates

Kyle de Beausset and Howard Manly quote Sarah Wunsch, Staff Attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, in this story about the Boston Police Departments controversial "Safe Homes" warrantless search program.

News: Surveillance cameras popping up all over region in attempts to catch criminalsm, but are they an invasion of privacy?

Jason Tait, a reporter for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, analyzes the trend toward installing more and more video surveillance cameras in the search for security, in this article.

The ACLU of Massachusetts does believe that there can be places were security cameras can make sense, to help keep people safe or enforce the law. Good examples are at "chokepoint" areas, like the entrances to public transit systems. But the usefulness of the cameras in deterring crime is exaggerated, and they raise privacy questions, as the article points out.

The story quotes a business owner who "welcome[s] Big Brother" to downtown, but does everyone?

Some of the questions that we encourage people to ask about surveillance cameras include:

- What are the technical capabilities of the cameras? Do they include software that automatically flags people who look "suspicious"?

- What are the plans for sharing and storing the digitized information?

- Can the information gathered by the cameras be used by the officials who control them for personal or political gain?

- What is the cost of using and maintaining the equipment? Will more cameras mean fewer cops or other basic equipment like bullet-proof vests?

- Have simpler methods been considered, such as better lighting, or more community policing? Is this a technical solution to a non-technical problem?

- Are there plans for expanding the use of the cameras?

- What safeguards are there to prevent "harassment by video camera" (e.g. zooming cameras in on women)?

Security cameras are one thing...

Most of the calls we get about video surveillance cameras have to do with security. But today, Michelle Romano at the Boston University Daily Free Press reveals a new twist in this article. It seems the school has been broadcasting images of campus life on the web for marketing purposes, for two years.

Security cameras are one thing -- but marketing?

The ACLU doesn't oppose video surveillance in specific, sensitive locations where it can be helpful to keep people safe or enforce the law. But should people really be expected to let go of more privacy for the sake of marketing?

"I Do Not Consent to a Search"

Remember those red and white buttons that the National Lawyers Guild distributed during the near police state days of the 2004 Democratic convention? Well, dig yours out and wear it all the time, especially if you live in Dorchester or Roxbury where the Boston Police’s euphemistic “Safe Homes” program wants to search your house without a warrant. A town hall meeting on Thursday, February 21, 2008 will present analysis and discussion by activists and community leaders of the planned police action. Location: MAMLEO Headquarters, 61 Columbia Rd., Dorchester, 6:30-9:00 p.m.

House lets "Protect America Act" expire! (For now)

Good news -- at least for the moment. Here's a just-out release from the national ACLU.

=====

House Stands Up to Threats from the White House
on Domestic Surveillance
ACLU urges careful consideration of cherished constitutional rights

For Immediate Release: February 14, 2008

Washington, DC – The Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives stared down the White House today and decided to stick with their version of revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House voted to adjourn without letting the phone companies off the hook for breaking the law by helping the government spy on Americans. The House is leaving town and allowing the unconstitutional Protect America Act to expire this weekend.

Statement from Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office:

“It is heartening that the House is standing up to the bullying from the president. The House is saying it will not give in to the administration’s lies and fear mongering. This administration has abused its power time and time again, and finally the House is standing up and saying no. The House is also sticking with the decision it made back in November not to give the phone companies and the Internet providers amnesty for illegal actions over the past six years when they provided Americans’ private calls and emails to the government without warrants.

“Members of the House were wise to let the clearly unconstitutional Protect America Act expire. Now, if the government wants to wiretap Americans on American soil it needs to get a warrant from the FISA court.

“The House sent the president a welcome reminder from the people that no one is above the law. Not the telecom providers. Not the White House.”

Fredrickson said that although the Protect America Act is set to expire this weekend, it doesn’t mean the new mass, untargeted surveillance programs authorized under that act will expire. Certain provisions of the Protect America Act will live beyond the law’s expiration date, including:

Orders under the Protect America Act can last for up to a year. Orders issued in the past six months will continue through their internal expiration date. So, for example, if the attorney general and director of national intelligence issue year-long orders on 2/15/08, they will run uninhibited until 2/15/09. (See PAA Section 6: Authorizations in Effect - Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration.)

Orders are not specific to individuals and can pick up new targets in the future. Although the orders are secret, we know the authority granted to the executive branch allowed them to create whole programs of surveillance that are not confined to any specific individual or facility – in fact, that breadth is precisely what the PAA is about. So, as programs continue, it stands to reason agents can pick up new suspects, phone lines, email accounts, etc., without the need to return to court.

In addition to all these continuing PAA authorities, if the government wants to listen to terrorists abroad it has a host of other options:

Collecting the call overseas where no warrant or order is required at all
Collecting the call here without an order under the 72-hour emergency provision
Collecting the call here under a FISA court order

To read more about the ACLU’s efforts to keep America safe and free and specifically to read about the FISA fight, visit www.aclu.org/fisa

Kennedy and Kerry opposed FISA

The Senate's latest cave-in, voting 68-29 to extend wiretapping authority and provide immunity for telecoms that went along with the White House's warrantless wiretaps when they were illegal, was outrageous.

At least Massachusetts can take consolation from the fact that Sen. Kennedy and Kerry stood on the right side.

The House now has the last chance to stop this before it goes to George Bush for his signature.

Letter to the Editor: Police gun searches raise concern

The Boston Globe carries a letter today by Carol Rose, our Executive Director. It's about the Boston Police Department's so-called Safe Homes plan, in which police ask for people (in predominantly African-American neighborhoods) to allow them to search their homes for guns, without a warrant.

The program raises many civil liberties concerns. As Rose says:

Boston residents have the right to say no when the police come to their door without a warrant. And when they do, the police should leave.

Keith Olbermann discusses FISA with John Dean

On Feb. 9, as the U.S. Senate prepared to give legal immunity to telecoms that went along with the White House's warrantless surveillance of American citizens, former White House Counsel John Dean discussed the issue with Keith Olbermann.

Keith Olbermann was one of our guest speakers at the ACLU of Massachusetts Bill of Rights Dinner 2007, and John Dean will be one of our speakers at our next Bill of Rights Dinner, on May 28, 2008.

Don't let a tragedy chill civil liberties

A tragic sexual assault on a child is a tough case in which to question public safety measures. But a case reported last week raises issues that should be examined, from a proposal to bar the public from entering a library, to reporting that casts blame on judges and assumes that prisoners should not be released after serving their full sentences. According to an article in the Boston Globe (2/1/08), a sex offender released in 2006 was charged with raping a child in a library in New Bedford. While the facts alleged are disturbing, the public would be better served by a more in depth explanation of civil commitment proceedings and the specific "sexual dangerousness" standard that was not met at the offender’s 2006 hearing after he served his sentence. Instead, the judge will now be vilified.

The following day's article (“Despite objections, many sex offenders freed” Boston Globe 2/2/08) further alarmed the public. However, it failed to question the practice by some prosecutors of seeking last-minute civil commitments based on decades-old information to keep offenders locked up. Are we now so used to the idea of indefinite detention that we expect it to be the norm after a prison sentence is served?

This week the rape charge led the mayor of New Bedford to call for blocking the public from the public library, unless we submit to carrying special, barcoded IDs (Boston Globe 2/6/07). Are we again willing to give up privacy and public access for the promise of security?

CIA monitoring YouTube

Since even private phone conversations and email are monitored, I guess this monitoring of YouTube and social networking sites doesn't really come as a surprise.

Thanks to George Jenkins at I've Been Mugged for pointing this out.

Scolding AT&T

Tech writer Joel Johnson appeared recently on a tech talk-show called The Hugh Thompson Show. It's carried by the AT&T Tech Channel.

Johnson used the opportunity to take AT&T to task for its filtering of the Internet and collusion with the National Security Agency. You can read his account of how this went over, and also watch the video yourself.

Press Release: Ellsberg, Maddow to headline ACLU of Mass. Membership Conference

Amid 2008 election season, gathering will focus on "Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties," Saturday at Bentley College

BOSTON -- More than 300 people from Cape Cod to the Berkshires plan to attend the first annual membership conference of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, this Saturday, January 26, 2008, at Bentley College in Waltham. The conference theme is "Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties."

WHAT: ACLU Membership Conference: Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties
WHERE: Bentley College, Waltham, Massachusetts, Lindsay Hall, 1st Floor
WHEN: January 26, 2008, 12–6 pm

Speakers include Daniel Ellsberg, the writer, activist, and former U.S. military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and Rachel Maddow, the Air America host and frequent commentator on networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and LOGO. Ellsberg will speak on "2008 and Beyond: What will it take to end the abuse of power?" Maddow's speech is entitled "Don't Wait for November '08!"

The conference also features ten workshops:

• Moving Beyond the War on Drugs
  
• Confronting the Surveillance Society: Real ID, NSA Spying, Warrantless Wiretapping, and Fusion Centers
  
• Torture, Rendition and Guantánamo
  
• Next Steps for LGBT Rights
  
• Freedom of Speech and Association in the Post 9/11 World
  
• Racial, Ethnic & Religious Profiling in the Post 9/11 World
  
• Ensuring Reproductive Freedom
  
• Which Way Forward for the Immigrant Rights Movement?
  
• Blogging for Civil Liberties
  
• Building and Sustaining Strong Student Groups
  

"Many of us concerned about the abuses of power we've seen in our country in recent years are focused on the 2008 elections. That's important, but for our conference this year, we've chosen to focus on specific issues and what individual people can do about them," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The erosion of our civil liberties has been so severe that it is unlikely that the next president and Congress alone will be able to undo the damage. We need the sustained involvement of concerned, committed citizens, and that is what the ACLU is working to develop."

Press Release: ACLU of Massachusetts Raises Concern About Latest Demonstration of Personal Data Vulnerability

Reported hacking of MassHealth web site illustrates problems with Fusion Center, Real ID

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today voiced concern over reported hacking of the state's MassHealth website. On Wednesday, a hacker reportedly infiltrated the site and put up an unauthorized message.

"Though in this case there seems to be no evidence that personal information has been compromised, the hacking of an important state website is yet another illustration of a serious problem," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

"We know that databases of personal information are a fact of modern life, but a long string of security breaches -- notably the TJX breach, as well as examples in both the private and public sector of missing laptops and storage media with thousands of people's personal information -- shows the extreme care that must be taken with personal data," said Rose.

The ACLU of Massachusetts remains highly concerned about security at the Commonwealth Fusion Center -- a massive government data-collection and sharing center in Maynard, Massachusetts -- as well as security for the proposed Real ID national identity card, which would create vast new databases of personal information, including Social Security numbers.

The Fusion Center, established by Governor Romney in 2005, has access to personal information about Massachusetts residents from both public and private sources, yet is subject to no regulation or oversight. Real ID has been criticized as a civil liberties nightmare that violates fundamental privacy rights, and as prohibitively expensive and unwieldy.

“These databases are treasure troves for identity thieves, they are vulnerable to misuse, and to date we have no reason to believe that appropriate safeguards exist or will be put into place," said Rose.

For more information about the Fusion Center, see:
http://www.aclum.org/news/ACLUM_12_12_07_Fusion_Centers.pdf

For more information about Real ID, see:
http://www.realnightmare.org/