Former DHS Chief Privacy Officer Recounts How She Was Regularly Called A 'Terrorist' By The Intelligence Community
from the sickening dept
Mary Ellen Callahan was the Chief Privacy Officer (and the Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer) at the Department of Homeland Security from 2009 until 2012 (though, don't tell DHS, since they still have a page on their website about her claiming she still has that role -- even though she left over a year ago). You have to imagine that being the Chief Privacy Officer within DHS (or any part of the federal government, really) is a pretty thankless job, and it appears that was absolutely the case when Callahan was there. Last night, she was given an award by the IAPP, the International Association of Privacy Professionals -- and used it as an opportunity to reveal the work environment in her old job. From the sound of those in attendance, she gave quite a speech, unloading on the lack of respect for privacy in both the Department of Homeland Security and the wider intelligence community.She apparently claimed that the number of privacy officers at the NSA was zero -- including the Chief Privacy Officer of the NSA. In other words, the position within the NSA is a joke, and that person has no interest, at all, in protecting Americans' privacy. But, apparently, she was just warming up, because (according to other attendees), she claimed that her office was accused of being "terrorists" once a month both by others at DHS as well as in the wider intelligence community. Furthermore, she was told that they would make her testify after the next terrorist attack, claiming it would be her fault, for daring to protect Americans' privacy. To her credit, Callahan apparently told those pressuring her that she would "happily" testify in support of her efforts to protect the privacy of Americans.
While this won't surprise the more cynical among you, it's an incredibly damning statement about how our intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security view privacy, and piddly little things like the 4th Amendment. It also shows how merely hiring a "chief privacy officer" doesn't mean that an agency actually is concerned about privacy or that it makes sure to protect the privacy of the American public. It's quite common that defenders of DHS, DOJ and NSA overreach will point to things like "privacy officers" as if that means they take privacy seriously. However, it's often somewhat like a privacy policy -- something you can point to, but which no one pays attention to. And, there had always been assumptions that anyone who took that role seriously would get pressure, but it sounds like the pressure was even greater and more ridiculous than most people expected. Hopefully Callahan will speak out further on the kind of pressure she was put under while in that job.
Hat tip to Ryan Calo and Joseph Lorenzo Hall, for tweeting from the event.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, chief privacy officer, dhs, homeland security, intelligence community, mary ellen callahan, nsa, pressure, privacy, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Haven't you read? The Govt has shut down so the pages may be outdated. Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to imagine that being the Chief Privacy Officer within DHS (or any part of the federal government, really) is a pretty thankless job, and it appears that was absolutely the case when Callahan was there.
I'd think that anybody involved with the Constitution or with any rights of the ordinary citizen is being mocked and called a terrorist as well. After all the US has nearly 300 million terrorists within its borders, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
Mike, I care for the articles, the research, and the economics that you hold to scrutiny.
But this just can't slide.
You see, that's not our intelligence community. That... Thing of LEOs is a beast that grew and grew into a hydra with many heads. We got the NSA as a result of the Second World War (give or take) and it's been working tirelessly to usurp democracy for generations.
James Bamford has great books on the subject. But the NSA doesn't CARE about the American people. It didn't in the 50s under Nixon, it didn't under any other president since and the American people have seen this exposed for the second or third time. This hydra cares only about the people that feed it and it isn't the American public. The public it serves has interest only in war and the money it receives in destruction.
To them, the Constitution is a piece of paper only meant to serve the needs of its master. It doesn't protect every single American born in the US.
So with all due respect, that isn't an intelligent thing to do. It also isn't intelligent to only serve the largest monetary interest. It's greed and dishonesty that brought down Nixon and even Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal.
If we want an intelligence community, it would be with academics, researchers, and people interested in these topics without assumptions, without backwards thinking, and able to present ways to discuss these issues without trying to have power over others.
I don't know... Maybe it's a pipe dream now, but that sounds like something better than a drone strike in a foreign country with nothing more than a gut belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
That, my friend, is the problem. Generals are good at some things but are trained to prevent transparency. The composition in the top of NSA lack the feel of the daily operations of someone with a different perspective.
What NSA is trying to do is adding an advisor instead. Advisors are that much easier to ignore than actually breaking the purity of the directors:
http://www.scmagazine.com/nsa-looks-to-fill-new-civil-liberties-and-privacy-officer-posi tion/article/313443/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
Well, supposedly, it's 'master'(as well as the Govt's 'master') is We The People.
Reminds me of a statement from Babylon 5
"...ink on a page!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only Long Practice in Cynicism Keeps My Head from Exploding
I can only hope there are others of integrity as high as Ms. Callahan's, who are sneaking around and protecting our privacy while keeping a low profile. Not that I'm betting anything I cherish on that hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is like the "for the children", "rape" or any hardcore subject, people get blinded by it and want to see it done no matter the cost in the end they always get screwed and keep wondering why it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I am wrong and the comments related were based upon some form of spite, but minimizing the possibility they were not seems a bit premature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every day? I have never seen workplace banter and "chain-pulling" of that sort in my entire 30+ year career arc spanning multiple companies. Not once.
I guess I've been fortunate in always having worked with professionals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being called a terrorist monthly is not workplace banter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-stalking/#comment-1063649460
It really is how they see anyone who disagrees with them.
Here's the thing; I disagree with both liberals and socialists, but I'm friendly with a number of them because they're reasonable, decent people trying to do the right thing for as many people as possible, with a view to encouraging equality of opportunity. What we disagree about is how to get there.
My point is, disagreeing with someone doesn't make you the enemy, and if they think you are one just for that, they're immature and paranoid. Not the kind of people you want to have in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't want to be blamed for the next terrorist attack by voting against more security spending and laws! In fact, all those who oppose any of national security spending, or laws stripping civilians of their rights in the name of national security must either be a terrorist, or secretly working with terrorists, because Bush said you're either with us or with the terrorists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She was lucky
NSA can spoof email (which is what I think they wanted to do to Snowden using Lavabit), so they can fake incriminating emails against her.
Or if she's really got nothing, they could plant drugs on her car, tip off the DEA to 'random' stop her car and lie in court to cover it up. She can't even say 'well NSA set her up, because DEA officers lied in court to say it was purely a random stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To quote the movie, "The Net"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I worked with her.
She was one of the rare professionals in DHS. I worked with her on many Privacy Impact Assessments and Privacy Threat Assessments.
She gets it, unfortunately there are too few of her types in the federal workforce.
For the NSA (good luck on reading this):
5A803027358E57A2F2AAF1C9276AD5F0FE605F9CB956C8504B4E8408AC66ACAA7CD4A274EA3A01DA78A58A0386 36ED503E2FD2E2CFF1374A471CD12DA74CE3BB
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's who it would work in a "functional" world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the dream is in the pipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
These people have truly been radicalized by their own rhetoric.
The views of most people who care about freedom and liberty haven't really changed. It is THESE people who have changed.
THEY are the terrorists. THEY are the radicals. THEY are guilty of treason.
-Ken
Laser Guided Loogie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]