After something I read today, I wouldn’t be so sure. For anyone who, after over 8 years of the Patriot Act in effect, still doesn’t believe the bill is an invasion of privacy on innocent Americans, perhaps the following will change your mind.
The New York Times reported today that during the years under the Bush administration, various political and religious groups and individuals were “improperly” monitored without sufficient evidence for surveillance. The Times reports the followed incidents:
- A “threat assessment” for a demonstration “involving local pro- and anti-abortion rights groups” written by an intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, which later “drew internal criticism” (within the Department) “because the groups ‘posed no threat to homeland security’”
- The creation of a “terrorism watch list report about a Muslim conference in Georgia at which several Americans were scheduled to speak, even though it ‘did not have any evidence the conference or the speakers promoted radical extremism or terrorist activity’”
- A report titled “Nation of Islam: Uncertain Leadership Succession Poses Risks” that was sent to hundreds of federal officials. The report was later destroyed “because the assessment of the group had lasted more than 180 days without uncovering evidence of potential terrorism”.
These incidences surfaced after a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. All of the reports cited above were destroyed by the Department of Homeland Security because of the belated realization that these groups “posed no threat to homeland security”. Typically, warrants and authorizations for a search require an articulation of reasonable suspicion for the search, but all of these incidents of improper intelligence gathering had no such basis. One of the many civil liberties concerns over the Patriot Act relates to the accepted level of ambiguity before intelligence gathering occurs. Specifically, the “national security letters” provision of the Patriot Act is most apt among the Patriot Act provisions to induce even more improper surveillance, like the cases reported above. National Security Letters are a tool used by the FBI to investigate an individual or organization without any need for judicial oversight. This morning, Edward blogged about the status about the Patriot Act legislation, and discussed some other concerning provisions of the law in addition to the NSLs.
Locally, the MCLU is very troubled by a program initiated by the South Portland police department to use license plate scanners mounted on police cruisers. The scanners canrecord everyone’s license plates, potentially subjecting all of us to surveillance as we go about our shopping in South Portland, thus turning the presumption of innocence on its head. Even more concerning to us is what an aggregation of the data collected by the license plate scanners could mean; over time, a map of an individual’s movements around the South Portland area could be created. The South Portland police maintain the cameras would only be used to recover stolen cars or in the case of an amber alert, but there are no limits or restrictions on data collection yet. Who’s to say the FBI could not use a national security letter authorized by the Patriot Act to obtain data collected by the South Portland police scanner about a Maine citizen’s movements?
The improper surveillance cases cited above, the NSL provision of the Patriot Act, and the license plate scanner program in South Portland demonstrate not only an increase in government surveillance of free and innocent American citizens, but also an absence of the need to prove reasonable suspicion or probable cause before the surveillance occurs. Don’t forget your fourth amendment rights, and don’t let these increasing instances of unwarranted and suspicionless surveillance continue. Learn more about theACLU’s Technology and Liberty project, which works to balance our civil liberties with the rapidity of technological development, here.
