My newest article will soon be published by the Bulverde Standard and its sister newspapers, but you can read it here first:
FEDERAL & STATE WIRETAPS RISE 19 PERCENT
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is required by law to release an annual report on federal and state wiretaps. These are wiretaps not covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, indicating that they aren’t related to espionage or international terrorism. The report also omits wiretaps by city and county-level law enforcement agencies.
The press release for the most recent U.S. Courts report is titled ‘Authorized Federal and State Wiretaps Rose 19 Percent in 2004′.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/04wiretapreport.pdf
The release states, “No requested applications were denied in 2004.†It also offers this:
“Seventy-six percent of all applications for intercepts in 2004, 1,308 wiretaps, cited drug offenses as the most serious offense under investigation. Nationwide, racketeering (138 orders) and gambling (90 orders) were specified in 8 and 5 percent of applications, respectively, as the most serious offense under investigation. The categories of homicide/assault (48 orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (39 orders) were specified in 3 percent and 2 percent of applications, respectively.â€
One must wonder why homicide doesn’t rank as the “most serious offenseâ€.
The press release goes on to say, “The most common location specified in wiretap applications was “portable device, carried by/on individualâ€, a category that includes portable digital pagers and cellular phones. In 2004, a total of 88 percent (1,507 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these.â€
Two relatively new mobile phone features make them particularly well suited for surveillance: global positioning data, which allows the phone’s location to be tracked at all times, and a stealth mode that allows the phone to transmit conversations while appearing to be off. The former, called E911, is in all new mobile phones, so that emergency service personnel can track the location of 911 callers. The latter, which is only in specially built phones, is suspected in the theft of trade secrets, which is why some corporations no longer allow mobile phones to be carried into closed-door meetings.
Meanwhile, buying a device that would block cell phones from operating within the range of a private conversation is still illegal, thanks to the FCC, who says these devices interfere with the rights of those who lease cellular spectrums. Of course, as many privacy advocates point out, enforcing this ruling is nearly impossible, since it’s very difficult to tell why a device isn’t picking up a signal. As a result, there’s been a boom in business for companies that sell “cellular jammers†and “cellular phone blockersâ€.
Why should any of this concern you? Many Americans will tell you that they’re not bothered because they have nothing to hide. A quick glance at history, however, shows that law-abiding citizens are frequently the targets of surveillance operations. Whether one studies the McCarthy era, the Cointelpro operation or the post 9/11 surveillance of activists, students and others, it’s clear that innocence doesn’t always protect you.
The Patriot Act, which is largely responsible for the increase in wiretaps, is coming up for reauthorization in early December. Senate and House leaders met on November 17th to hammer out an agreement that leaves the most controversial aspects of the Act untouched. For example, the FBI can still gain access to the business records of ordinary Americans who aren’t suspected of any wrongdoing, and they can do so without notifying their target.
Another provision gives the FBI broad powers to serve businesses with “national security lettersâ€. These letters require a business to disclose confidential customer information without notifying the customer. Prior to 9/11, national security letters were limited to a narrow set of circumstances, and only about 300 were issued each year. Currently, over 30,000 are issued annually.
The November 17th congressional agreement amends the Patriot Act to allow businesses to notify customers whose information will be disclosed, but only if the business proves in court that such notification won’t endanger diplomatic relations, national security or public safety. The government is under no such burden of proof. If it says that any of these will be endangered, the business loses its case, making it unlikely that national security letters will be challenged by anyone.
Absent a sudden public outcry, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act is likely to go as planned, and next year’s wiretap report will undoubtedly show yet another increase in federal and state surveillance.
