Tag: overcriminalization

The Theory of Surveillance: The Panopticon and the Stainless Steel Rat

As we residents of Massachusetts gambol heedlessly downward from the Mountains of Liberty toward the Swamps of Oppression, let’s take a brief breather to consider a more general commentary on surveillance.

Philosophical examinations of governmental surveillance powers center on eighteenth-century founder of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and twentieth-century philosopher Michel Foucault. The key concept used to inform their thinking is Bentham’s notion of the Panopticon:

The Panopticon: the ideal prison
According to Bentham, the ideal prison

The Panopticon was a prison with the cells in the outside circle and the guard tower in the center. Each prisoner was, at all times, perfectly visible to the guards. The guards were invisible to the prisoners, so prisoners had to assume that they were being permanently watched.

Continue reading The Theory of Surveillance: The Panopticon and the Stainless Steel Rat

Microscope Monday: Massachusetts’ proposed Electronic Privacy Act (S. 796 / HD 1014)

microscope

Howdy and good morning, lovers of the Internet freedoms!

It’s time for another in our “Microscope Mondays” series, where we take a good hard look at pending legislation here in Massachusetts relevant to surveillance. Previously, we’ve covered a praiseworthy effort to restrict the use of drones for law enforcement purposes and Martha Coakley’s should-be-better-known “Let’s Wiretap All Of The Things Even Though Crime Is Down” bill. This week, it’s the turn of S. 796 / H. 1684, “An Act Updating Privacy Protections for Personal Electronic Information”, sponsored by Senator Karen Spilka and departing Representative Marty Walz.

Continue reading Microscope Monday: Massachusetts’ proposed Electronic Privacy Act (S. 796 / HD 1014)

The God of Vengeance is Still Thirsty: Feds Charge Reuters Social Media Editor Matthew Keys with Aiding Anonymous, Threaten 25 Years in Jail & $750,000 Fine

Prosecutorial discretion has a long history on the American continent.
Prosecutorial discretion has a long history on the American continent.

Just in case you thought that the federal government would be satisfied with massively overcharging Aaron Swartz and Barrett Brown, we now have the case of Reuters social media editor Matthew Keys (@TheMatthewKeys).

Seems that a grand jury indictment has been filed in Sacramento, alleging that Keys participated in an online chat where he gave Anonymous hackers login credentials for his former employer, the Tribune Company, possibly in exchange for access to the IRC channel where Anonymous hackers were discussing future exploits, and possibly out of disapproval of the Tribune Company using paywalls. The indictment alleges that he told the channel to “go f*** some sh** up”. A hacker then used those credentials to alter, for about half an hour, a story on the Tribune website, so that it claimed that a hacker called “Chippy 1337” was about to be “elected head of the [U.S.] Senate”, to which Keys apparently responded “Nice”.

Enemy of the state #957,141
Enemy of the state #957,141

May I take a moment? [Sips glass of water] Thank you. [Deep breath]

Continue reading The God of Vengeance is Still Thirsty: Feds Charge Reuters Social Media Editor Matthew Keys with Aiding Anonymous, Threaten 25 Years in Jail & $750,000 Fine

Microscope Monday: Massachusetts’ new drone privacy bill

A microscope, steampunk style.
A microscope, steampunk style.

Since our earlier analysis of the repellent new bill expanding electronic wiretapping was well-received, we’re starting an official series analyzing proposed Massachusetts legislation, called “Microscope Monday”.

In honor of the efforts to organize a new drone privacy group here in Massachusetts, this week’s bill is S. 1664 (Hedlund) / H. 1357 (Garry), “An act to regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles”.

State Senator Robert Hedlund is introducing this legislation in the Massachusetts Senate. Hedlund is a Republican and is the Assistant Minority Leader. His district covers Cohasset, Duxbury, Hingham, Hull, Marshfield, Norwell, Scituate and Weymouth. State Representative Colleen Garry is introducing the legislation in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. She is a Democrat, and her district covers Dracut and Tyngsborough.

This is not a long bill, but it’s a good one, and we at Digital Fourth commend the sponsors for introducing it. It’s currently in the Committee on the Judiciary (House) and the Committee on Transportation (Senate).

Continue reading Microscope Monday: Massachusetts’ new drone privacy bill

Alex Marthews, Digital Fourth President, and Jamie O’Keefe of the Mass Pirates, on Two Hotheads Radio discussing the Mass. electronic wiretapping bill

Transcript runs from around 11-20 minutes:

HEATHER MACK (host): We have some guests in the studio. We have Jamie from the Mass Pirates Party, whom we’ve had on before. We also have a new guest, Alex Marthews, from the Campaign for [Digital] Fourth Amendment Rights, also from the Pirate Party [sic], here to talk a little bit about Massachusetts and the new Coakley bill, “An Act Updating the Electronic Wiretapping Laws”, and generally about Fourth Amendment rights, particularly online. So tell us a little about that, about this new Coakley bill, and why we should be very afraid!

ALEX: The main thing to understand about this bill is that this is not a new thing. This is something that the Attorney-General’s office in Massachusetts and law enforcement in Massachusetts tries to do very regularly. Every two-year session, they try to what they call “update” the electronic wiretapping law. And, by “update”, they mean, “remove all reasonable constraints on” electronic wiretapping in Massachusetts. They’ve been trying to do this for a long time. Every time it comes back, it comes back a little different. Last session, it was all about financial crime. This time, because of the terrible tragedy in Newtown, it’s all about gun crime…

HEATHER: Oh, yep.

ALEX: …and keeping us safe from school shootings. It’s exactly the same ideas. So what they want is removal of all constraints on electronic wiretapping, but they’ll hang it on whatever the controversy of the day is, in order to get it done.

HEATHER: Absolutely.

ALEX: So what the law involves, what they’re proposing, is that it won’t just be that they can do electronic wiretapping when it’s in connection with organized crime or other very serious crimes. It could be in connection to things that are not really terribly serious. Simple marijuana possession is one. Manufacturing…

HEATHER: You know how much of a threat that is. [laughs]

ALEX: It’s an incredible threat, and anyone who possesses marijuana is a terrorist by definition.

HEATHER: [Laughs] We all know that.

ALEX: I know, I know.

HEATHER: It’s quite the terrorist bunker we’re operating out of here.

ALEX: I, for one, welcome our new attorney-general overlords, and I hope they’ll be doing something about that. The…if you manufacture arrowheads in the Commonwealth, then that will count as a weapon, and therefore make you subject to an electronic wiretapping warrant…

HEATHER: What is the point? What is the point? [Laughs]

ALEX: The point? Well, they like to say…

MIKE CANN [host]: Unlimited government power.

ALEX: Yeah, that is exactly it. It is not about reducing crime. Crime is about as low in the Commonwealth as it has ever been.

MIKE: Record lows.

ALEX: It’s lower than at any time since before 1968. And so, you gotta ask yourself, it’s gotta be about the power. It’s not the case – they try to argue that criminals have “got the upper hand” here in Massachusetts. Well first, if they have the upper hand, doesn’t that reflect poorly on them? Isn’t that their job?

JAMIE: But they don’t have the tools, is what they’ll say.

ALEX: Ach. But they do not need these tools!

HEATHER: Where’s the evidence of these far-reaching underground criminal syndicates that are…

MIKE: Well, now it’s about the guns. Now they’re saying that because of the school shootings and the gun violence…

HEATHER: Oh, because Adam Lanza needed the Internet…

ALEX: Adam Lanza basically didn’t use the Internet.

HEATHER, MIKE: No.

ALEX: He didn’t even have a Facebook profile. Electronic wiretapping would not have done a thing.

HEATHER: Exactly.

ALEX: But let me tell you one thing that is in this law that is very interesting that I’ve come across. They’ve introduced specific language trying to legalize electronic wiretaps in “switching stations”. Switching stations are phone company facilities.

MIKE: Wow.

ALEX: What they wanna do, it appears, is to be able to put a wiretap in your local AT&T facility which will then tap everything coming through that facility. We are a long way here from the protections of the Constitution.

HEATHER: Yeah, it’s true.

MIKE: And that means no oversight by a judge, right? You see, that’s what –

ALEX: Well –

MIKE: – a warrant is, having a judge having some reasoned suspicion to look through your papers, right?

ALEX: Well, let me be clear about this. The electronic wiretapping warrants would be reviewed by a judge. They’ve backed off from the stuff they were doing in previous sessions, where they were saying, no, no, it doesn’t really need to be done by a judge. But this is the first time they’ve introduced this idea of mass surveillance at phone company facilities, and I am very disturbed by this.

MIKE: And what rules would they have about how long they would keep those files, and the record-keeping, I mean…

ALEX: Well, I’m sure they will have rules…

MIKE: Right.

ALEX: but they’re not telling you what they are yet.

MIKE: I know.

JAMIE: Neither does the NSA, and they already do that.

MIKE: I know. Isn’t that a problem with a lot of this stuff, that there’s no…you know, to back into the TSA thing we’re doing today, it’s about the oversight. I mean, the fact that we had this protest, we found out more information on what they’re doing, because now they have to answer to the press, ’cause they’re being asked about it, and I think a lot of this activism is all about that – is to get them to give us information, ’cause we never – when the Feds do stuff, and now the states wanna be like the Feds, I mean, this is what it comes down to in a lot of respects, is these federal laws have been around for awhile now, and now states are doing civil practices, no warrant needed. They’re gonna be able to spy on us, on anyone they want. I mean, look at the marijuana movement that we – Heather and I have been, you know, championing and part of. You have medical marijuana in Massachusetts. How easy is it for them to claim that anyone involved in medical marijuana – supplying cannabis to patients – now I’m a money-launderer – they’re gonna trace all your phone calls, they’re gonna read all your emails, they’re gonna document everything about you with no warrant needed, in the State of Massachusetts. Is that what we want?

JAMIE: Well, it’s not what we want, but one of the things you have to remember of course is that the Attorney-General now, or even…

MIKE: Right now…

JAMIE: …can go, in different counties even, can go to Twitter, and say, “Give us all of your direct messages”, can go to Facebook and say, “Give us all this information”, and they don’t even – Facebook, or Google, or Twitter, doesn’t even need to tell you that all of this information is being gotten.

MIKE: Yeah, this is what’s so…you know, I’m glad you brought that up, Jamie, ’cause it seems like in so many of these cases, not only should we be saying no to the government, allowing them more of a reach, allowing them more power in this situation. We should be hassling them to help us and protect us, and come up with some laws to actually protect our privacy, protect our rights, from a lot of the – like, there’s no oversight on any of this, anywhere, and it’s just getting out of control.

JAMIE: But that makes their job harder, and they certainly don’t want their job to be harder.

MIKE: I know, it’s a Catch-22, isn’t it? [crosstalk]

ALEX: But we’ve gotta get…we’ve gotta develop the discussion. We gotta make it a more mature discussion. It can’t be simply the discussion that we’ve been having here in Massachusetts, where law enforcement comes up with something that will make their life easier, and we all go, oh, it makes life easier for law enforcement, therefore we must do it. No. The Fourth Amendment would not exist, and the Fifth and Sixth and Eighth Amendments would not exist, if all that mattered was making life easy for law enforcement. If…There are plenty of things that law enforcement wants to be able to do, there are plenty of things that would make life easier for them to do, that are not allowed because of the Constitution. And I’m sorry guys, it takes you longer, it costs you more money, but them’s the breaks. You’re in America, you’re not in North Korea, you have to put up with it.

HEATHER: [laughs] Not yet.

Security Theater on the T: Demonstration Condemns Random Bag Searches

On Saturday, a new civil rights group called “Defend the 4th” conducted a successful protest against the TSA. Despite the bitter cold, over 200 people turned out, marching from various points on the MBTA system and congregating on Boston Common. People attending included folks from Anonymous, Occupy Boston, the Pirate Party, the Republicans, the Ron Paul folks, the Socialists and a most righteous quantity of press organizations. Congratulations to organizers Garret Kirkland, Tamarleigh Grenfell, Frank Capone, Petey Bouras, Elvis Rodriguez and Joshua Chance Scafidi.

I was impressed to see that even in the depth of winter, 150 people in the Boston area were willing to turn out to defend the Fourth Amendment. That’s the equivalent of 1,500 in the summer.

Why were we so upset about the TSA’s activities on the MBTA? Since 2006, the TSA has been conducting “random” bag searches on the MBTA, where they scrape bags for explosives. They are “random” because federal law requires suspicionless searches to be random in order to pass legal muster, but the TSA can (and has) selected, say, Dudley Square T station (in a mostly-black neighborhood) rather than Symphony station (in the tony South End), as their base of operations, and then “randomly” chosen one out of five travelers. If a traveler doesn’t consent to a search, they have to go to another station (or sometimes simply a different entrance to the same station). Oh, and the TSA doesn’t work shifts on the MBTA at weekends.

The TSA must think that terrorists are the dumbest people on Earth. It requires only a minimal amount of intelligence for an explosives-carrying terrorist to decide that this policy makes Sunday the best possible day for a terrorist attack.

What does this remind me of? Oh yes…

asterix
From “Asterix in Britain”, 1966, by Goscinny & Uderzo

This is pure security theater. It’s designed to make the TSA look as if it’s doing something. Not coincidentally, it also extends the authority and reach of the TSA over our ordinary lives, and to justify expanded budgets. No evidence has ever been made public that any terrorist entity is targeting the MBTA. But even if there were such evidence, we have the right to travel freely around our country. The authorities, whether TSA or anyone else, must have probable cause before targeting any of us for a search. We’re not a country that does internal passports, random checkpoints, or asks citizens to show their papers without cause.

More specifically, the demonstrators’ constitutional concerns have at least some merit. In ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), sobriety checkpoints and therefore also these kinds of random bag checks are explicitly unconstitutional. In Massachusetts, the state Constitution’s Article XIV suggests strongly that random bag searches would also be unconstitutional here:

Art. XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right [cp. are unconstitutional], if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation, and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.

Got that? To be constitutional, a search “in suspected places” must “be accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search”. Random bag checks don’t do this.

This should serve notice to the TSA. People are beginning to wake up to the TSA’s disrespect for long-established rights. There’s no evidence of a threat to the MBTA; there’s no evidence that random bag checks are effective; and the checks are of doubtful legality. Without some pushback, every agency will want a piece of the homeland security pie, till our every move in public becomes the object of surveillance by a newly and aggressively militarized police presence. We can afford a gentler and more civilized way of life.

Won’t Somebody Think of the Children!!!1!!!: Mass Law Enforcement Proposes Massive Expansion of Wiretapping Powers

Some folks might be ashamed to use the bodies of dead kids as cover for a power grab. That clearly doesn’t include Massachusetts Attorney-General and failed Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley.

The Globe reports that Coakley, along with state senator Gene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea) and state rep John Keenan (D-Salem), have introduced a new bill to massively expand law enforcement’s power to conduct electronic wiretaps of our communications (S. 1726 / HD 1194).

In her press conference, Coakley cited the school shooting in Newtown, and a 2011 case where a murder conviction was overturned because it rested on evidence obtained under a wiretap that was not valid under current Massachusetts law. What the Globe doesn’t mention, but Waltham’s Daily News Transcript does, is that the murderer in question was convicted later anyway (good reporting, Andy Metzger!).

There is not one scrap of evidence that easier electronic wiretapping would have prevented the school shooting in Newtown, or would prevent school shootings here in Massachusetts. The Newtown shooter wasn’t on Facebook or Twitter, and nothing has emerged relating to his computer or cellphone use.

More importantly, if the best evidence Coakley and friends can come up with to justify expanding wiretapping powers is a case where they got a conviction in the end anyway, that changes their argument completely. Instead of “this will help us convict more criminals”, they’re really arguing “this will save us some time and expense”.

Sorry, guys. That won’t cut it. Any limit on government investigatory powers makes investigations longer and more expensive. That’s the point. If investigations are costless, everyone will be investigated, because why not?

Last, and most laughably of all, both Coakley and O’Flaherty breathlessly told the press that “criminals have the upper hand” here in Massachusetts. Here’s a graph showing crime rates per head in Massachusetts, using federal crime statistics:

crime

The facts show that crime has been steady at less than 3 reported crimes per 100 residents per year since around 2002, and that that level is the lowest since 1968. Criminals don’t have “the upper hand” here in Massachusetts. Crime is about as low as it’s ever likely to go.

Let’s not kid ourselves what this is about. This is not about reducing crime. Remember, they can’t think of a single case where there’s a criminal walking free today because electronic wiretapping is only allowed under narrow circumstances here in Massachusetts. This is about power. The AG’s office knows that it’s technologically possible for them to monitor more of our electronic communications, and it bugs them that it’s illegal to do, whether or not that monitoring will result in more convictions. So, they’re ginning up false fears of crime, calling this an “update”, and trying to get the people of Massachusetts to agree to join them in the brave new mass-monitored world – which they, not us, would control.

Guys, you’ve been rumbled. Your arguments don’t make sense. Find better ones or go home.

Why not let them know how you feel?

To contact the Attorney General’s office, try here.
To contact State Senator Eugene O’Flaherty, try here.
To contact State Representative John Keenan, try here.

Aaron Swartz, RIP: Overcriminalization Claims Another Victim

Aaron Swartz
Aaron Swartz

There are no words to describe the loss to the world of brilliant technologist Aaron Swartz, who killed himself this weekend at the age of 26.

Aaron had already helped to develop RSS and Reddit, worked to stop the Stop Online Piracy Act, and was deeply involved in Internet activism. He could easily have devoted his extraordinary skills only to profit; instead, he committed himself passionately to openness and the spread of knowledge. Lawrence Lessig has summarized his work far better than I can. The creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, gave the eulogy at his funeral.

Aaron’s death teaches us an important lesson about how the law operates here in 21st-century America. He was not the only local activist to be unnecessarily persecuted by government agencies. Laws relating to our Internet activities have been drawn so widely and so poorly that eager prosecutors can find grounds for indicting more or less anyone, for things that in former times the law would not have defined as crimes at all. Government agencies can now open investigations on people, and subject them to the sledgehammer of the criminal justice system, on the strength of nothing more than unwise posts on Twitter or translating the wrong materials. Prosecutors answer to nobody regarding the fairness or proportionality of their investigations.

The result is that dissidents who hamper powerful interests can far too easily be investigated and silenced. The result is that brilliant, original and public-spirited souls like Swartz exhaust their energies on meaningless legal battles, rather than developing new and wondrous technologies to solve problems we all face. We’ll never know now what Aaron Swartz would have come up with next, thanks to the casual brutality of a criminal justice system that cares more for creating criminals than for achieving justice.

Know what side you’re on. Overcriminalization hurts us all. We need to stand together, and rein in this crazy system, before it chews us all up.

UPDATE: Journalist Radley Balko has an excellent piece on “The Power of the Prosecutor” – go read it!

Albert Woodfox
Albert Woodfox of the Angola 3
Julian Assange
Julian Assange of Wikileaks
Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning, whistleblower on war crimes
Leah Lynn-Plante
Leah Lynn-Plante, anarchist imprisoned for refusing to testify to grand jury
Tarek Mehanna
Tarek Mehanna, imprisoned for translating al-Qaeda materials
Barrett Brown, hacktivist imprisoned for annoying the FBI
Barrett Brown, hacktivist imprisoned for annoying the FBI

Free Essam Attia, Political Artist

Hey, kids! Worried about law enforcement using drones for surveillance? Well, maybe you oughta just shut your goddamn piehole on that, because here in the New America, complaining about that shit can get you arrested.

That’s right. In the home of the First Amendment (my third favorite Amendment, after the Fourth (obvs) and the Ninth (link provided)), if the NYPD doesn’t like you challenging their use of drones by, say, putting up satirical posters on a few phone booths in downtown Manhattan, they’ll throw the book atcha.

essam-attia-drone-poster

After a no doubt thorough tossing of his apartment, Maine-born artist and former military geospatial analyst Essam Attia has been charged with “56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny, possession of stolen property and weapons possession after allegedly having an unloaded .22-caliber revolver under his bed“.

I’m just guessing here, but “forged instrument” presumably means “satirical posters using the NYPD logo for First-Amendment-protected political speech”. The most serious charge, for possession without a license of a small-caliber unloaded handgun, wouldn’t even be a crime in most jurisdictions; Attia claims that the gun is an antique, which under New York state law would not require a permit.

Let’s sum up. The NYPD, in the course of an investigation into an extremely minor crime (described as “kiosk vandalism”, though the kiosks were not in fact damaged), go through every inch of the suspect’s apartment, and find material that under current laws can be used to support over fifty criminal charges. There’s no word from the NYPD or any press source about what the alleged stolen property is. If Attia is correct that the gun is an antique, there’s no basis for the charge. And yet they are still able to launch in, lock him up, and submit him to all the terror and trouble of the criminal justice system, because he embarrassed them in public. They have loaded him up with charges purely to serve as a deterrent to others thinking about criticizing the NYPD – and this is even before the NYPD has any actual drones out in the field.

cartman-autorita

Maybe this is just the NYPD’s artistic response to Attia’s artistic critique. And maybe they should just drop the charges, already. Jeez, people.

UPDATE: My own Congressman, Ed Markey, has just introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act. It’s surely a good idea; but note that even one of the House’s most liberal members can offer up only that law enforcement agencies should be careful about their use of drones, not that we should stop or reverse the process of approving the use of drones for domestic law enforcement purposes.