{"id":130935,"date":"2012-05-12T10:06:56","date_gmt":"2012-05-12T14:06:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?p=130935"},"modified":"2012-12-26T16:04:12","modified_gmt":"2012-12-26T21:04:12","slug":"surveillance-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"Surveillance State Of Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Article:<\/strong> Surveillance State Democracy<\/a> by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.<\/p>\n

The Text:<\/strong> CNET\u2018s excellent technology reporter, Declan McCullagh, reports on ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to force the Internet industry to provide the U.S. Government with \u201cbackdoor\u201d access to all forms of Internet communication:<\/p>\n

The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance. . . . That included a scheduled trip this month to the West Coast \u2014 which was subsequently postponed \u2014 to meet with Internet companies\u2019 CEOs and top lawyers. . . .<\/p>\n

The FBI general counsel\u2019s office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding,\u201d an industry representative who has reviewed the FBI\u2019s draft legislation told CNET.<\/p>\n

As for the substance of this policy, I wrote about this back in September, 2010, when it first revealed that the Obama administration was preparing legislation to mandate that \u201call services that enable communications \u2014 including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct \u2018peer to peer\u2019 messaging like Skype\u201d \u2014 be designed to ensure government surveillance access. This isn\u2019t about expanding the scope of the government\u2019s legal surveillance powers \u2014 numerous legislative changes since 2001 have already accomplished that quite nicely \u2014 but is about ensuring the government\u2019s physical ability to intrude into all forms of Internet communication.<\/p>\n

What was most amazing to me back when I first wrote about these Obama administration efforts was that a mere six weeks earlier, a major controversy had erupted when Saudi Arabia and the UAE both announced a ban on BlackBerries on the ground that they were physically unable to monitor the communications conducted on those devices. Since Blackberry communication data are sent directly to servers in Canada and the company which operates Blackberry \u2014 Research in Motion \u2014 refused to turn the data over to those governments, \u201cauthorities [in those two tyrannies] decided to ban Blackberry services rather than continue to allow an uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information within their borders.\u201d As I wrote at the time: \u201cthat\u2019s the core mindset of the Omnipotent Surveillance State: above all else, what is strictly prohibited is the ability of citizens to communicate in private; we can\u2019t have any \u2018uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

In response to that controversy, the Obama administration actually condemned the Saudi and UAE ban, calling it \u201ca dangerous precedent\u201d and a threat to \u201cdemocracy, human rights and freedom of information.\u201d Yet six weeks later, the very same Obama administration embraced exactly the same rationale \u2014 that it is intolerable for any human interaction to take place beyond the prying eyes and ears of the government \u2014 when it proposed its mandatory \u201cbackdoor access\u201d for all forms of Internet communication. Indeed, the UAE pointed out that the U.S. \u2014 as usual \u2014 was condemning exactly that which it itself was doing:<\/p>\n

Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador to the United States, said [the Obama administration’s] comments were disappointing and contradict the U.S. government\u2019s own approach to telecommunication regulation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance \u2014 and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight \u2014 that Blackberry grants the U.S. and other governments and nothing more,\u201d Otaiba said.<\/p>\n

\u201cImportantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the U.S. for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n

A week after the announced ban by the Saudis and UAE, The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Falkenrath \u2014 a top-level Homeland Security official in the Bush administration and current principal in the private firm of former Bush DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff \u2014 expressing support for the UAE\u2019s Blackberry ban. Falkenrath explained that \u201c[a]mong law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers [in the U.S.], the Emirates\u2019 decision met with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy.\u201d The Obama administration \u2014 by essentially seeking to ban any Internet technology that allows communication to take place beyond its reach \u2014 is working hard to ensure that its own Surveillance State apparatus keeps up with those of the UAE and Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n

The FBI claims this requirement is merely an extension of current law that mandates that all telecommunications carriers provide government surveillance access to telephone conversations when a search warrant is obtained, and that failure to extend this requirement to Internet communications will risk \u201cGoing Dark\u201d with important investigations. There are many reasons why this claim is false.<\/p>\n

For one, as surveillance expert Julian Sanchez explained to me in October, the U.S. Government does not need \u201cbackdoor\u201d access to all Interent communications in order to surveil even individuals using encrypted communications; instead they can simply obtain end-user surveillance to do so: \u201cif the FBI has an individual target and fear he\u2019ll use encryption, they can do a covert entry under a traditional search warrant and install a keylogger on his computer.\u201d Moreover, the problem cited by the FBI to justify this new power is a total pretext: \u201cinvestigators encountered encrypted communications only one time during 2009?s wiretaps\u201d and, even then, \u201cthe state investigators told the court that the encryption did not prevent them from getting the plain text of the messages.\u201d As usual, fear-mongering over national security and other threats is the instrument to justify massive new surveillance powers that will extend far beyond their claimed function.<\/p>\n

Sanchez explains that the true value of requiring back-door access for all Internet communications is full-scale access to all communications: \u201cIf you want to sift through communications in bulk, it\u2019s only going to be feasible with a systemic backdoor.\u201d McCullagh notes that Joe Biden has been unsuccessfully attempting to ban encrypted communications, or at least require full-scale government access, since well before 9\/11. As for why this proposed bill is far more intrusive and dangerous than current law requiring all telephone communications to be subject to government surveillance, see Sanchez\u2019s analysis here. The ACLU makes similar points here about why this proposal is so dangerous, and describes the numerous ways it extends far beyond current authorities concerning government access to telephone communications.<\/p>\n

Moreover, for anyone who defends the Obama administration here and insists that the U.S. Government simply must have access to all forms of human communication: does that also apply to in-person communication? Should home and apartment builders be required to install monitors in every room they build to ensure that the Government can surveil all human communications in order to prevent threats to national security and public safety? I believe someone once wrote a book about where this mindset inevitably leads. The very idea that no human communication should ever be allowed to take place beyond the reach of the Government is definitive authoritarianism, which is why Saudi Arabia and the UAE \u2014 and their American patron-ally \u2014 have so vigorously embraced it.<\/p>\n

* * * * *<\/p>\n

The procedure being used here by the FBI to obtain these powers is just as significant to me as the substance of the policy it wants. Notice how the FBI \u2014 in order to obtain these new powers \u2014 does not believe it needs to persuade the American citizenry to accept it. Instead, they\u2019re meeting with the people who actually hold power over our laws \u2014 industry executives \u2014 in order to plead with them not to oppose this. FBI officials even planned a pilgrimage to Silicon Valley \u201cto meet with Internet companies\u2019 CEOs and top lawyers\u201d in the hope of obtaining their permission to proceed with this new scheme.<\/p>\n

This, of course, is how virtually all American laws are written: by having government officials meet in secret with affected industries to ensure that their interests (as opposed to the interests of ordinary citizens) are protected. This is what the recent (and probably temporary) defeat of SOPA revealed: although it was genuinely encouraging to see so many people from all different realms voice objections to the government\u2019s attempted seizure of Internet-control powers, it was really the fact that the Interent industry opposed the law that doomed it. Citizen opposition, by itself, would never have been sufficient to overcome the pro-SOPA lobbying of the entertainment industry; it took a different powerful industry to stop it. For that reason, remaining remnants of Internet privacy depend upon the willingness of the tech industry to defend them, and while some companies have been commendable in those efforts, it\u2019s far from clear that industry opposition to increased surveillance powers has anything to do with privacy concerns:<\/p>\n

If there is going to be a CALEA rewrite, \u201cindustry would like to see any new legislation include some protections against disclosure of any trade secrets or other confidential information that might be shared with law enforcement, so that they are not released, for example, during open court proceedings,\u201d says Roszel Thomsen, a partner at Thomsen and Burke who represents technology companies and is a member of an FBI study group. He suggests that such language would make it \u201csomewhat easier\u201d for both industry and the police to respond to new technologies.<\/p>\n

There are potentially promising options for at least limiting, if not reversing, this sprawling Surveillance State. The SOPA fight proved that there is a vibrant constituency among Internet users for fighting government control of the Internet, but the key is to ensure that it remains a trans-partisan cause. There are examples demonstrating that restricting government power can transcend standard ideological divides \u2014 Adam Serwer reported last week on the left-right coalition that has arisen against the NDAA\u2019s indefinite detention provisions, and we\u2019ve seen similar coalitions in opposition to the Patriot Act and endless militarism, and in support of transparency for the Fed and in defense of civil liberties and privacy in Britain. Indeed, opposing the Clinton administration\u2019s attempt in the 1990s to ban government-proof encryption was once a major cause for self-styled \u201climited government\u201d conservatives as well as civil liberties groups.<\/p>\n

These examples prove that it is possible to mobilize meaningful citizen opposition to growing government surviellance powers if these standard partisan and ideological divdes are overcome. Along those lines, McCullagh notes that \u201cthe White House, perhaps less inclined than the bureau to initiate what would likely be a bruising privacy battle, has not sent the FBI\u2019s [] amendments to Capitol Hill, even though they were expected last year.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the possibility \u2014 as dangerous as it is promising \u2014 that severe economic anxieties could lead large numbers of people to abandon the two-party mainstream and its orthodoxies; that is precisely what is happening now in Greece. Growing discontent with America\u2019s political institutions could scramble and subvert now-unchallenged precepts in all sorts of unpredictable ways, both good and bad (indeed, it seems clear that fear of that sort of unrest is a major factor motivating always-increasing domestic Surveillance State powers).<\/p>\n

It is possible for citizens to meaningfully oppose this relentless expansion of the Surveillance State. These ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to ensure full government access to all forms of communication reflect that such efforts are desperately needed. But at least thus far, those who continue to expand the National Security and Surveillance State appear to have little fear of any meaningful citizen backlash.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Article: Surveillance State Democracy by Glenn Greenwald in Salon. The Text: CNET\u2018s excellent technology reporter, Declan McCullagh, reports on ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to force the Internet industry to provide the U.S. Government with \u201cbackdoor\u201d access to all forms of Internet communication: The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nSurveillance State Of Democracy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surveillance State Of Democracy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Prose Before Hos\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-05-12T14:06:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-12-26T21:04:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/\",\"name\":\"Surveillance State Of Democracy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-05-12T14:06:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-12-26T21:04:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\"},\"description\":\"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surveillance State Of Democracy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\",\"name\":\"Prose Before Hos\",\"description\":\"The Far Side Of Politics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\",\"name\":\"Article of the Day\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surveillance State Of Democracy","description":"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surveillance State Of Democracy","og_description":"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/","og_site_name":"Prose Before Hos","article_published_time":"2012-05-12T14:06:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-12-26T21:04:12+00:00","author":"Article of the Day","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_site":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Article of the Day","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/","name":"Surveillance State Of Democracy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-05-12T14:06:56+00:00","dateModified":"2012-12-26T21:04:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e"},"description":"As the FBI seeks full access to all forms of Internet communication, it is not voters who need to be convinced.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/05\/12\/surveillance-democracy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surveillance State Of Democracy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/","name":"Prose Before Hos","description":"The Far Side Of Politics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e","name":"Article of the Day","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork"],"url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130935"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130935"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130935\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133592,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130935\/revisions\/133592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}