DHS Steps Up Demands For Visa Applicants' Social Media Account Info

from the welcome-to-land-of-the-free,-sucker dept

The slow boil of ultra-intrusiveness at the border is underway. Americans apparently signed away a great deal of their rights in exchange for some national security, resulting in a Constitution-free zone extending inland 100 miles from the nation's borders. Visitors and visa holders are in for a much more revealing experience upon arrival, although they'll be on the only ones doing the revealing.

The DHS has floated several ideas over the last several months, ranging from "voluntary" requests for social media account info to straight-up demanding account passwords. The vetting of newcomers and visitors is moving towards the "extreme" end of the dial, with the DHS finally formalizing the first part of its list of demands.

Foreigners applying for a visa to enter the US will now be asked to turn over their social media handles for the past five years, as well as biographical information -- including email addresses and phone numbers -- for the past 15 years.

The new form says nothing about its voluntary nature until the very last sentence of the fine print on the second page. Presumably, the DHS is hoping applicants will fill the whole thing out before getting to the statements saying they don't have to. The wording also hints not filling out the form completely will result in a less favorable review of the application. The terms "delay" and "denial" are placed in very close proximity to the word "voluntary."

And even if applicants opt out, the government still has the power to remove the voluntary aspect of the social media account info requests.

The agency added that consular officials… will have free rein to demand applicants to turn over their information who they believe may "warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities."

The government's filing states officials will not request account passwords, at least not at this time. That is still subject to change and DHS head John Kelly has already hinted at this demand's inevitability. And that only covers this form. There will be no box on this form for social media passwords, but that doesn't specifically forbid officials and/or CBP/ICE agents from hinting things will run smoother and faster with the right kind of voluntary cooperation.

Filed Under: dhs, social media, tourism, visa applications

Congress Fast-Tracks Bill That Would Give DHS Agencies Access To NSA Collections

from the natsec-promiscuity dept

As a parting gift to the incoming president, Barack Obama approved information-sharing rules which gave sixteen federal agencies access to unminimized NSA collections. The whole list of agencies involved in the information sharing can be found at the ODNI's (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) website:

Two independent agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);

Eight Department of Defense elements—the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and intelligence elements of the four DoD services; the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

Seven elements of other departments and agencies—the Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Yes, the collected communications can be masked to protect the identities of US persons, but that call is made on a case-by-case basis by the NSA and there are several government officials with the power to demand unminimized access.

This just isn't enough sharing, apparently. Patrick G. Eddington of CATO reports a new bill is being quickly and quietly pushed through the House to expand this sharing to several more federal agencies.

Introduced on April 26 by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), the “Improving Fusion Centers’ Access to Information Act” (HR 2169) is designed to plug any “information gaps” in state “fusion centers” by modifying the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require DHS to

identify Federal databases and datasets, including databases and datasets used, operated, or managed by Department components, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of the Treasury, that are appropriate, in accordance with Federal laws and policies, to address any gaps identified pursuant to paragraph (2), for inclusion in the information sharing environment and coordinate with the appropriate Federal agency to deploy or access such databases and datasets;

The DHS is already on the list of agencies with access to NSA collections. This bill would allow it to give underling agencies access to the same info. Some notable three-letter agencies on that list include CBP, ICE, and TSA. While the NSA's collections are supposed to serve a national security purpose, the FBI uses its access for standard criminal investigations. There's no reason to believe these agencies won't do the same.

But the bill has friends everywhere in the House. The bill was passed after 40 minutes of debate, thanks to a suspension of normal voting rules. The normal concerns for national security were voiced, but nothing was said of the NSA collection's routine use in routine, domestic criminal investigations. That Congress considers expanded information sharing with domestic security agencies "non-controversial" (hence the sped-up voting process) is an indication of the majority's view of the privacy/security balancing act.

Worse, if the bill becomes law, the worst, most ineffective parts of the DHS will be given access to data and communications gathered by the NSA. Fusion centers -- which are already known for being mostly useless, when not actively doing damage to Constitutional rights -- will have even more information to misuse. The bill would give bicycles to fish in all 50 states. The only thing guaranteed is the new powers will be used badly. Eddington quotes from a 2012 report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which found DHS Fusion Centers to be expensive, useless, and a harm to the public.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated that it had spent somewhere between $289 million and $1.4 billion in public funds to support state and local fusion centers since 2003, broad estimates that differ by over $1 billion.

The investigation found that DHS intelligence officers assigned to state and local fusion centers produced intelligence of “uneven quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.”

This is where the NSA's collections will ultimately end up: in the hands of DHS branch offices that do little more than repeatedly screw up. Only now, they'll be able to do significantly more harm to Americans' civil liberties. Add to that the routine clusterfuck that is the CBP, ICE, and TSA, and you have a recipe for massive Fourth Amendment violations under the pretense of national security.

Filed Under: congress, data sharing, dhs, nsa, surveillance

DHS, TSA To Make Boarding A Plane Even More Of A Pain In The Ass

from the whatever-makes-the-experience-more-dystopian... dept

More bag-sorting and intrusiveness awaits more flyers thanks to the DHS and TSA. The TSA has already banned electronic devices larger than a cellphone from being brought on board flights originating in 10 predominantly Muslim countries. Now, it wants to extend that ban to European nations. For now, the new inconvenience is in its test phase.

Rather than make things safer, officials now want lithium ion batteries and other similar fire hazards to be stowed in areas where no one's likely to notice a developing fire and subject them to the sort of abuse airline employees save for items they haven't personally purchased. All in the name of safety, and all in the name of unspecified threats.

The additional stupidity is this would only apply to flights in and out of the US, but not to domestic flights… at least not at this point. DHS boss John Kelly sort of clarified this on Fox News last week, utilizing a very governmental vagueness.

WALLACE: I want to pick up on aviation because you are in the process of making some big decisions on aviation. And I want to do a lightning round, quick questions, quick answers.

Are you going to ban laptops from the cabin on all international flights both into and out of the U.S.?

KELLY: I might. That's a quick answer.

WALLACE: Yes, well, expand a little bit.

KELLY: Well, there’s a real threat. Numerous threats against aviation, that's really the thing that they are obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight, particularly if it’s a U.S. carrier, particularly if it's full of mostly U.S. folks, people. It's real. You know that I implemented I think on the 21st of March a restriction on large electronic devices in the cabins from ten points of origin.

But wait, there's more! Not only will laptops face a potential ban on international flights, folks flying domestic may be forced to do even more sorting of their carry-on goods.

WALLACE: Another lightning round question, I do need a quick answer here because we’re running of time. The TSA is testing tighter screening of carry-ons, and the idea that people who bring their carry-ons are going to have to unpack them and put food in one bin, and electronics in the another bin, and paper in another bin.

Are you going to spread that nationwide and what’s that going to do to the screening lines?

KELLY: Yes, I mean, the reason we’ve done, TSA, of course, works for me. The reason we've done that is because of -- people trying to avoid the $25 or $50 or whatever it is to check a bag are now stuffing your carry-on bags to the point of, you know -- well, they can't get any more in there. So, the more you stuff in there, the less the TSA professionals that are looking at what's in those bags through the monitors, they can't tell what's in the bags anymore. So, if you put --

WALLACE: So, are you going to do that nationwide?

KELLY: We might, and likely will.

There's a good chance this move will receive unanimous support from airlines. Not that airlines can actually create travel safety policy, but this policy will likely result in more checked baggage. It likely won't have any effect on travel safety, but it will at least give TSA agents more opportunities to convert passengers' electronic devices for personal use.

It's also going to create longer lines at security checkpoints, as bags are unpacked and sorted before scanning, then reassembled afterwards. This new inconvenience also works out well for the TSA, as it serves as the perfect advertisement for its Precheck service -- the one where the government sells your rights back to you for a small fee.

Again, this will have a negligible effect on travel safety. In fact, it could be argued that piling up people at security checkpoints makes them a much more tempting target than going through all the logistics of smuggling weapons and explosives onto a plane. At best, security will be no better than it was prior to the bag sorting, and it definitely will make travelers less secure. As Mike pointed out earlier, taking steps to separate people from their electronic devices will lead to all sorts of sensitive information being stored in unsecured areas.

[F]orcing people to give up their laptops has a secondary (but very serious) problem: for anyone traveling with sensitive information (lawyers, doctors, reporters, business execs, public officials, etc.) giving up your laptop is a massive security risk.

All of this makes much more sense when you realize the head of the DHS isn't in the business of finding smart solutions, but rather selling fear to willing buyers.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Friday said the terror threat is worse than most realize, saying some people would "never leave the house" if they knew the truth.

“I was telling [Fox host] Steve [Doocy] on the way in here, if he knew what I knew about terrorism, he’d never leave the house in the morning,” Kelly said on “Fox & Friends.”

And yet, millions of Americans not only leave the house, but fly millions of air miles without incident. I'm sure Kelly believes this is mostly due to the TSA's ever-shifting rules on carry-on luggage, but the reality is that terrorist attacks are still an anomaly -- outliers on the curve of human existence, at least here in the US. The proposed measures will guarantee more money flows to airlines and TSA, but little else.

Filed Under: dhs, flights, laptops, security theater, tsa

US & EU Not Banning Laptops On Planes... Yet

from the stay-tuned dept

Last week there were reports claiming that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was just about ready to ban any laptops from being in the passenger cabin on any flights between the EU and the US. As we pointed out this made no sense, even if there were credible reports of terrorists turning laptops into bombs (as the rumor goes). The plan was supposedly set to go into effect last Thursday, but on that day DHS said it hadn't made a final decision yet. Of course, apparently some over eager airline employees had official signs printed up claiming the ban was already in place (leading to later apologies).

Apparently, the decision not to implement the ban came because EU officials were not thrilled with the idea and wanted to discuss -- leading to a series of meetings. Of course, that also allowed time for the airline industry to snap to attention and announce that such a ban might cost travelers around $1 billion. Admittedly, there may be some dubious math involved... but it's fairly obvious that such a plan would lead to all sorts of problems for travelers -- from general lost productivity, to delays and confusion around checking the laptops, to broken, lost or stolen computers and more.

At least for now, we can breathe a sigh of relief that the EU/US meetings have ended without a plan to ban laptops on planes... though such a plan could always pop out again in the near future (and, it will almost certainly happen if there is an airplane bombing). And, of course, there's still the ominous "other measures" still being considered:

US and EU officials have decided against a ban on laptops and tablets in cabin baggage on flights from Europe.

But after a four-hour meeting in Brussels to discuss the threats to aviation security, officials said other measures were still being considered.

Air travel security theater continues to be the worst security theater.

Filed Under: bans, dhs, eu, flights, laptops, security theater, us

This Makes No Sense: US To Ban Laptops On All Flights From Europe

from the yes,-but-wait-what? dept

Earlier this year we wrote about the nonsensical move by the Department of Homeland Security to ban laptops and tablets in the cabin on flights from a bunch of cities in the Middle East. The rumored reason was discoveries that terrorists had learned how to make bombs out of laptops. As we noted, this made almost no sense at all when you challenged any of the assumptions. But, never let logic and reason get in the way of a bit of inane security theater. Because now Homeland Security is about to announce that it's now banning laptops in the cabins on all flights from Europe (it's unclear if this will also apply on flights from the US to Europe, but it seems likely that European airports will reciprocate).

While this does answer one of the questions raised by the original ban ("why won't potential terrorists just fly out of other countries?") it still raises a host of other questions. Again: why won't this apply to flights from other countries? Or domestic flights? Or all flights? But, really, that just raises an even larger issue, which is that if you want to protect 100% of all flights 100% of the time from ever having a problem in which people might die, the answer is ground all flights and never let anyone fly anywhere ever. Problem solved. Of course, the cost of such a solution would be horrendous -- which is why we don't do it. But that's the key issue: all of these things involve tradeoffs. All too frequently, it appears that government officials -- especially those on the national security side of things -- don't care at all about the tradeoffs. They just care about blocking any possible attack no matter how unlikely or how remote the chance of such an attack might be, and without any consideration of the costs and inconveniences to everyone else. And, yes, it's reasonable to point out that a single attack would be very, very costly as well. And there's clearly a reason to protect heavily against attacks. But there's still a balance.

And there must be a better solution. If laptops are a risk factor, it's difficult to see how putting them in the cargo hold -- where there's no one to stop a fire -- is a better solution. Hell, most current airline rules require passengers to store all lithium ion batteries in carry-on luggage for exactly that reason. Putting them all in the hold would seem to increase the risk of accidental explosions and fires that might cause just as much, if not more, damage. And, of course, forcing people to give up their laptops has a secondary (but very serious) problem: for anyone traveling with sensitive information (lawyers, doctors, reporters, business execs, public officials, etc.) giving up your laptop is a massive security risk.

In other words, the "cost" of this solution is ridiculously high for a very large number of people, for whom flying to or from Europe has just become a massive inconvenience and tremendously problematic to justify given the personal risk. And for what? Vague and unclear threats about "possible" exploding laptops? I'm sure that no one wants to be on a flight with a laptop that will explode (whether on purpose or not), but there has to be a better way to tackle the problem than doing a blanket ban on laptops in the cabin. And, yes, perhaps this sounds like saying nerd harder back to Homeland Security, but this is a case where there clearly are more reasonable tradeoffs that can and should be explored, well short of inconveniencing everyone and creating a very different (but very serious) kind of security threat by forcing people to give up their laptops.

Filed Under: ban, computers, cost benefit, dhs, europe, homeland security, laptops, terrorism

DHS Boss Drums Up Fear Using The FBI's Useless Terrorism Investigation Stats

from the [extremely-Count-Floyd-voice]-'threat-assessments-ooooooooh' dept

Want to know how much of a threat terrorism poses to the United States? Just ask an agency whose relevance and budget depends on projecting the appearance of a constant threat. Here's John Kelly, the new head of the DHS:

The threat to our nation and our American way of life has not diminished. In fact, the threat has metastasized and decentralized, and the risk is as threatening today as it was that September morning almost 16 years ago.

As I speak these words the FBI has open terrorism investigations in all 50 states, and since 2013, there have been 37 ISIS-linked plots to attack our country.

The problem with swearing on a stack of FBI statements is these assertions are completely meaningless. The FBI's a well-oiled terrorist-crafting machine at this point, so it can come up with whatever number of ISIS-linked plots is needed to further the agenda of multiple government agencies.

As for "open terrorism investigations," it would be much more helpful if the FBI didn't term nearly everything it does an "investigation," even when there's nothing worth investigating. As we've covered here before, there are a few different types of investigations the FBI engages in, starting with something that looks a whole lot like an investigation (in terms of information the FBI can obtain), but really isn't. These "investigations" are called assessments, and it takes almost nothing at all to get one of these underway. Emily Hockett and Michael German of Just Security explain how the guidelines for assessments changed radically after the passage of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008.

The most drastic change came in 2008 with a set of guidelines issued by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who today is an ally of President Trump. The 2008 Guidelines created a new type of investigation called an “assessment.” Assessments permit physical surveillance, database searches, interviews, racial and ethnic mapping, and the recruitment and tasking of informants without any factual or criminal predicate, that is, without any objective basis to suspect the target of the investigation has violated any law, or is likely to in the future.

Because Kelly's statement doesn't clearly define what sort of investigations the FBI is engaged in, it's quite possible the FBI only has assessments underway in several states. Rather than portray the nation as a hotbed of potential terrorism, the presence of assessments indicates nothing at all. That the FBI can engage in surveillance without "any factual or criminal predicate" is disturbing enough. Misrepresenting the depth of these investigations to further a narrative of fear is carelessness at best. It's deeply dishonest at worst.

But even if we are to take the DHS head's word at face value -- that the FBI actually has real investigations opened in all 50 states, the word "investigation" still doesn't mean much. It should never be assumed an investigation is actually an indicator of terrorist activity. There are also "preliminary investigations" -- a step above assessments but below the FBI's standard for an actual investigation. These, too, can be based on almost nothing.

Preliminary investigations require only “information or an allegation,” and contrary to Comey’s testimony, the allegation does not need to be “credible.” A 2010 Inspector General report found the FBI opened preliminary investigations on political advocacy organizations based on mere speculation that the subjects might commit a crime in the future, and the agents themselves often made the required “allegations.”

Comey's statement -- the one cited by John Kelly -- claimed all FBI investigations need "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis…" This obviously isn't true. Using the presence of FBI investigations to support claims of a persistent terrorist threat gives the FBI far too much credit.

The extremely low bar the FBI must avoid tripping over on its way to unwarranted (in both senses of the word) surveillance gives it plenty of busywork to keep agents and analysts busy. It does not, however, make the United States any safer.

From 2009 to 2011, the first two years the Mukasey guidelines were in place, the FBI opened over 82,325 assessments, of which only 3,315 found information that warranted opening preliminary or full investigations.

Given the preliminary investigation hurdle doesn't rise above shin-high, assessments seem to be a convenient excuse for surveilling Americans and adding this to the FBI's overstuffed databases. FBI terrorism investigations are a completely useless metric for gauging the domestic terrorism threat. But, hey, whatever sells more government power.

Filed Under: dhs, fbi, fear mongering, investigations, john kelly, terrorism

Homeland Security's Inspector General Investigating Attempt To Unmask 'Rogue' Tweeter

from the so-much-to-investigate dept

As you probably recall, a few weeks ago Twitter sued Homeland Security after it received a summons from Customs & Border Patrol seeking to identify any information about the @ALT_uscis account. USCIS is the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, and the "alt" part is similar to many other such accounts purporting to be anonymous insiders in the government reporting on what's happening there (whether or not the operators of those accounts truly are inside those organizations is an open question). Anyway, the issue here is that such a use of Twitter would be protected by the First Amendment, and unless the account was revealing classified info, it's unlikely that there would be any legit means to investigate who was behind the account. And, because of that, it certainly appeared that Customs and Border Patrol decided to use illegitimate means to get the info. Specifically it sent a 19 USC 1509 summons, which is an investigative tool for determining the correct duties, fees or taxes on imported goods. As you can see, identifying a Twitter user does not seem to fit into what that law is for.

Having been called out on this in federal court (and, one hopes, having DOJ lawyers chew out DHS/CBP folks), the feds dropped the summons hours later and Twitter withdrew the lawsuit.

However, abusing the law to seek out information like that is a pretty major abuse, and is one that shouldn't just let everyone move on afterwards without some sort of accountability. Senator Ron Wyden asked Homeland Security's Inspector General if it was investigating this and, in a fairly straightforward and open letter, DHS IG, John Roth, lets Wyden know that an investigation is ongoing and even clarifies what they are investigating and why. The letter itself is pretty clear, so I'll just post a chunk of it here:

While we typically do not comment on open investigations, it has come to my attention that there may be some confusion about the scope of DHS OIG’s work relating to this matter. Specifically, we have been asked to clarify which, if any, of the following three issues we are investigating:

(1) Misconduct on the part of the owner of the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account, who CBP suspected was a DHS employee;
(2) CBP’s use of its summons authority in this particular case; and
(3) Use of summons authority across the Department.

Regarding the first issue, we were asked by CBP to assist their efforts to determine whether the tweets at issue disclosed any classified information. To that end, we helped CBP pull the content of @ALT_USCIS’s tweets off the internet and cross-reference that content against data in DHS systems to determine whether the information was classified. We have concluded that no classified information was released via the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account.

I’d like to make clear that DHS OIG has not played any role in attempting to identify the owner of the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account, and only learned of the issuance of the March 14, 2017 summons when it was reported in the media. Our investigation protocol includes controls for situations in which First Amendment activity is implicated, and we strive to ensure that our work does not have a chilling effect on individuals’ free speech rights. I can confirm that DHS OIG is not investigating, and will not investigate, any alleged misconduct on the part of the @ALT_USCIS account owner relating to his or her use of the Twitter account.

Regarding the remaining two issues, I can confirm that DHS OIG is investigating whether the investigation conducted by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility relating to the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account was improper in any way, including whether CBP abused its authority in issuing the March 14, 2017 summons to Twitter. DHS OIG is also reviewing potential broader misuse of summons authority at the Department and/or its components.

That's pretty clear and makes sense. They looked and found no classified info being revealed, they've been careful to not seek any other way of identifying the owner of the account, or to do anything that might chill speech, and they are actively investigating if CBP abused its authority (beyond just this one case). I look forward to find out the results of that investigation.

Filed Under: alt_uscis, cbp, customs, dhs, rogue tweeter
Companies: twitter

DHS Boss Calls For More Fear, Less Encryption

from the Frightened-States-of-America dept

The Trump administration is rebranding the country: Make America Fear Again. In response to a national crime wave that doesn't exist, the head of the DOJ is rolling back police reform and replacing it with extra "toughness." Under the new regime, law enforcement officers will have the full (and, apparently, unconditional) backing of the White House.

The DHS is joining the DOJ in flexing its new muscle. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already stated he's looking to turn requests for visitors' social media/email account information into demands, which would include the mandatory relinquishment of account passwords.

Both agency heads have expressed a desire to do battle with US citizens by revitalizing the fed's war on marijuana, despite legalization referendums being passed by popular vote in several states.

Kelly... course-corrected on a previous statement he made regarding the dangers of marijuana.

Calling it “a potentially dangerous gateway drug that frequently leads to the use of harder drugs,” Kelly vowed that DHS personnel would continue to investigate and arrest those involved in illegal trade of the drug.

That comes after Kelly on Sunday told “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd that marijuana was “not a factor” in the war on drugs, arguing that solving the nation’s drug problem does not involve “arresting a lot of users.”

These comments came during Kelly's first major public speech since taking office. His "course-corrected" statement echoes DOJ head Jeff Sessions' take on marijuana, a drug only found dangerous by agencies whose budgets rely on marijuana being viewed as a threatening "gateway drug."

Both are also looking to toss more immigrants out of the country, theorizing that stricter immigration control will somehow curb drug cartel violence -- almost all of which is contained completely in other countries. Kelly mentioned Salvadoran drug cartel MS13 in passing, claiming it was responsible for acts of violence and stateside human trafficking.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was even less kind in his appraisal, delivering comments that made it sound as though the only thing standing between the US and societal collapse was American law enforcement:

When we talk about MS-13 and the cartels, what do we mean? We mean criminal organizations that turn cities and suburbs into warzones, that rape and kill innocent citizens and who profit by smuggling poison and other human beings across our borders. Depravity and violence are their calling cards, including brutal machete attacks and beheadings.

It is here, on this sliver of land, where we first take our stand against this filth.

The DHS head is also capitalizing on Trump's dark -- and deeply-inaccurate -- view of national security. His speech portrayed the country as being under ceaseless attack from innumerable evil forces.

“We are under attack from people who hate us, hate our freedoms, hate our laws, hate our values, hate the way we simply live our lives. And we are under attack every single day,” he warned. “The threats are relentless.”

Kelly covered a wide swath of issues — from transnational criminal organizations to cyberattacks to homegrown violent extremism, often using graphic descriptions of human suffering to illustrate the dangers.

The speech harkened back to President Trump’s inaugural address to Congress, in which he described “American carnage” outside of the Beltway.

No agency benefits more from the perception of an insecure homeland than the Department of Homeland Security. But the trickle-down effect of fear-based policy-making helps other agencies as well.

In his speech, Kelly tacitly aligned himself with the only Obama holdover Trump seems to like: FBI director James Comey.

He warned that proliferating encrypted communications technology would soon make it “impossible” to track terrorist threats.

Kelly had more to say on that subject in relation to Trump's still-unseen cybersecurity executive order. Supposedly, an updated version of the draft released in February is due any day now, and no matter what's in it, Kelly fully supports it.

“I’m standing by with bated breath,” Kelly said when Frank Cilluffo, director of the university’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, asked if there was any news on the order. “I can’t wait.”

Presumably not referencing the FBI's counterterrorism sting operations with the phrase "homegrown terrorism," Kelly again pointed to encryption as being part of the problem.

“What’s feeding homegrown terrorism is the Internet. They publish revolting how-to manuals,” Kelly said. “Thanks to proliferating encryption devices, these individuals are becoming harder and harder to detect. Our nation’s youth are prey to these predators.”

Between John Kelly, AG Jeff Sessions, and CIA head Mike Pompeo, the administration seems interested in sacrificing citizens' freedoms and protections on the altar of national security. All three are hoping loaded, hyperbolic language will convince more Americans to give up these protections willingly. Those who don't will probably be viewed as enemies of the nation -- and that includes any legislators who appear reluctant to give these agencies everything they want. Kelly again:

“If lawmakers do not like the laws they’ve passed and we are charged to enforce — then they should have the courage and skill to change the laws. Otherwise they should shut up and support the men and women on the front lines,” Kelly said, to a burst of applause in the auditorium.

This is wonderful stuff if you're a fan of authoritarianism. Shut up and show your support. It's a message that's been sent several times by the new president. Now, it's being echoed by his top officials.

Filed Under: crime, dhs, encryption, fear, going dark, john kelly

Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account

from the the-times-we-live-in dept

As you probably know by now, there are a whole bunch of "alt" or "rogue" government Twitter accounts, initially inspired by what appeared to be tweets from a former National Parks Service employee containing "rogue" information against the Trump administration. Many of those rogue accounts are questionable in nature and likely fake, rather than being actually run by employees of the parts of the government they claim to represent. Still, it appears that many in the government are concerned. Just yesterday, via a FOIA request, it was revealed that Donald Trump himself got "directly involved" in the hunt for the National Park Service's rogue tweeter:

If you can't read that, it's an excerpt from an email saying that "this has become a very sensitive issue, especially since the President has gotten directly involved and contacted Acting Director Mike Reynolds concerned about one of the images..."

It appears that other parts of the government are also deeply concerned with unmasking who's involved in these things. Today, Twitter sued the US government because the Department of Homeland Security and its Customs & Border Protection division have apparently been trying to unmask the operator of the @ALT_uscis account, which claims to be run by people working for US Citizenship and Immigration Service presenting the "rogue" view on immigration issues.

From the lawsuit:

This is an action to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and the individual Defendants from unlawfully abusing a limited-purpose investigatory tool to try to unmask the real identity of one or more persons who have been using Twitter’s social media platform, and specifically a Twitter account named @ALT_USCIS, to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration. The rights of free speech afforded Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech. In these circumstances, Defendants may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users. But Defendants have not come close to making any of those showings. And even if Defendants could otherwise demonstrate an appropriate basis for impairing the First Amendment interests of Twitter and its users, they certainly may not do so using the particular investigatory tool employed here—which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise—because it is apparent that whatever investigation Defendants are conducting here does not pertain to imported merchandise.

Specifically, Twitter argues that DHS is abusing particular laws that CBP/DHS has access to, but for a specific purpse -- and it's not to identify rogue employees:

First, the sole statutory authority CBP invoked in issuing the summons—19 U.S.C. § 1509—authorizes the agency to compel production of only a narrow class of records relating to the importation of merchandise. But CBP’s investigation of the @ALT_USCIS account plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the importation of merchandise into the United States. Section 1509 thus provides CBP no power to compel Twitter to reveal information pertaining to the identity of the individual(s) behind the @ALT_USCIS account.

Further down in the complaint, Twitter notes that it appears that DHS/CBP directly misrepresented what was happening here:

The CBP Summons states generically that “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties, or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by CBP and ICE.” Beyond that boilerplate language, the CBP Summons provides no justification for issuance of a summons targeting the @ALT_USCIS account.

Amusingly, the lawsuit also notes that CBP demanded Twitter hand over this info the day before the summons was sent.

And then it points to the clear free speech chilling effects this kind of unmasking could cause:

Second, permitting CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other “alternative agency” accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies. The Supreme Court has long recognized the extraordinary value of the kind of speech emanating from these accounts—pure political speech criticizing government policies and highlighting government waste and mismanagement. And the Court has likewise recognized that anonymity is often essential to fostering such political speech where, as here, the speaker could face retaliation or retribution if his or her real identity were linked to the speech. In this context, the CBP Summons must be declared unlawful and enjoined absent an evidentiary showing by Defendants that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important free speech rights of Twitter and its users. Defendants have not even attempted to meet that burden.

As for the actual account, since the lawsuit was announced it retweeted the ACLU saying that it will go to court to defend the anonymous person or people behind the account, and then it pinned the following tweet:

I have no idea if the people behind the account really work for US CIS, but there's no way that the government should be able to abuse other laws or chill free speech to try to track down people saying things they don't like.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, free speech, privacy, uscis
Companies: twitter

Homeland Security Starts Banning Laptops & Tablets On Planes From The Middle East

from the that-is-going-to-piss-off-a-lot-of-people dept

It's been a very long time since I last flew somewhere without my laptop. I actually am more productive than usual on planes, and I tend to use flying time to just focus in and get a ton of stuff done. I can't even begin to explain how ridiculously frustrating it would be to find out that I wouldn't be allowed to bring a laptop onto a plane, and yet it appears that our new Homeland Security overlords have put in place new restrictions on flights to the US from certain countries in the middle east barring tablets and laptops from the cabin (apparently no American carriers are impacted -- just foreign ones). Passengers are being told to check such things (which is odd, since normally you're not supposed to check lithium ion batteries...). Flights from 13 countries are being hit with this, and Homeland Security won't give any further explanation beyond the usual "national security." And, just this morning, the UK announced that it would be doing the same thing.

Homeland Security has been hinting that this is due to some sort of specific threat -- so it sounds like there's intelligence around a planned attack using such a device. Perhaps then the extra precaution is sensible. But, once again, this feels like a form of overkill security theater: inconveniencing basically everyone (to extreme levels) based on the slight possibility of a very small number of bad actors. There has to be a better way. Every time one of these new restrictions is put in place, it not only completely inconveniences people, but it shows people that if they somehow convince the scaredy cats at DHS of some new type of threat, they can inconvenience people even more. It's almost as if each additional inconvenience is impacting things way more than an actual exploding laptop or whatever might.

Of course, it should be no surprise that former TSA boss Kip Hawley, is now running around arguing that this is no big deal and Wired is happy to tell everyone to calm down and just "buy a book." But that's kind of crazy -- especially for people who have important or sensitive information on their laptops and don't want to hand them off to baggage carriers with a history of snooping through bags and stealing expensive electronics.

Also, since this is limited to just a few Middle Eastern airports, it's not hard to think that if there are terrorists planning something, they'll just head to different airports instead. Yes, I'm sure that someone saw something that they thought was a threat, and it's reasonable to put in place plans that try to minimize some of that risk. But it has to take into account the cost side too, and there has to be a better way to deal with it than such a blanket ban impacting so many people.

Filed Under: dhs, flying, laptops, middle east, national security, security theater, tablets, terrorism, threats, tsa, uk, us