[ga] Re: [Politech] Jim Harper: What was in the water at Markle Foundation task force meetings? [priv]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Declan, Jim and all,

  Your very right in your conclusion Jim, I too as I had posted to this
forum
but for some reason didn't get actually posted, doubt the savvy of some
of the members whom collected info for, and produced this "Report".

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Politech] Open letter on security, civil liberties from
> Farber, Dyson, Lemmey [priv]
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:00:22 -0400
> From: Jim Harper - Privacilla.org <jim.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: <jim.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: Privacilla.org
> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Declan:
>
> I want to know what was in the water at the meetings of this Markle
> Foundation Task Force.  It seems that every participant came out of
> there intoning about 1) the need for this 'trusted' information network;
> and 2) the suitability of various rules and boards for controlling a new
> government database (albeit a networked one) which will sweep in
> potentially unlimited data about all Americans' activities.
>
> Let's talk about how much this thing is like Total Information
> Awareness.  Section 206 of the Senate-passed intelligence reform bill
> makes a few casual references to use of private-sector data in this
> information 'environment'. (An amendment changed the name of this
> project from "network" to "environment" - to further obscure what's
> going on, to bring on support from confused greens, or both.)
>
> If you want to know what is actually envisioned, look at the Markle Task
> Force's surveillance roadmap at Appendix H
> http://www.markletaskforce.org/reports/Report2_Part3.pdf (page 80 of the
> .pdf / 150 of the document itself): divorce papers, calling card logs,
> page and text messages, credit card applications, academic records,
> insurance policies and claims, Web site search histories, licenses of
> every kind, cable viewing records, prescriptions.  I'm just
> cherry-picking.  The list goes on and on.
>
> And here are Markle-produced matrices of the laws that need amending so
> the government surveillance system can lawfully get full access to the
> data.  That is, if the "national security letter" provision of the
> Patriot Act doesn't survive.
> http://www.markletaskforce.org/privacyrules.html
>
> So let's call a spade a spade.  This is Total Information Awareness,
> rebranded, with the corners smoothed down.
>
> 1) Would it work?/Do we need it? That's beyond the pay-grade of all but
> a seer.  I strongly believe that it would cost too much in civil
> liberties, privacy, autonomy, and everything else we take so much pride
> in enjoying as Americans.
>
> These surveillance programs distract from the real efforts that will
> suppress terror: human intelligence, hardening infrastructure against
> likely tools and methods of attack, and the promotion of liberty,
> literacy, and commerce in countries where terrorist ideologies have
> taken root.
>
> 2) 'Oh, but there are safeguards.' This is what really galls me.
>
> As a student of governments and government behavior, I will tell you
> what the authors of this open letter apparently don't get: Bureaucracies
> seek to maximize their budgets, and do so by maximizing their power and
> influence.
>
> In translation: rules, protocols, and oversight boards will be
> impediments to the institutional interests of those operating this
> surveillance system, including not only the law enforcement/national
> security bureaucrats, but also the growing number of companies in the
> surveillance-industrial complex.  They will work quietly and diligently
> over years to dismantle the limits placed on them, making a mockery of
> the 'careful balance' supposedly struck by the Markle Surveillance
> Project.
>
> If this goes forward, it will be a clear victory for the surveillance
> state and a clear loss for freedom. I don't doubt the good faith of the
> authors of this open letter. I doubt their savvy.
>
> Where the heck in the Fourth Amendment does it say "General warrants
> shall issue if the Markle Foundation Task Force says it's OK"? That's
> where this thing goes if it passes.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Harper
> Editor
> Privacilla.org
> and
> Director of Information Policy Studies
> The Cato Institute
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politech mailing list
> Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827