Rogue CBP Agent Decided To 'Drain The Swamp' By Tracking Down A Journalist To Sniff Out Her Sources

from the christ-what-an-asshole dept

The DOJ has decided it can safely threaten First Amendment protections, so long as it's done in the pursuit of leakers. The Trump Administration has leaked like no other, prompting AG Jeff Sessions to triple-up on former president Obama's war on whistleblowers. Omelets/eggs broken, I suppose, if the end goal is dialing back leaks to only the ones the administration approves of.

It's cool to target journalists' communications again. That's the general mood of the DOJ, which slapped itself on the wrist during Eric Holder's tenure for hoovering up AP journalists' communications, only to reverse course when the desire to prosecute leakers surpassed its desire to not look like a thuggish force of government oppression.

The indictment of Senate Intelligence Committee advisor James Wolfe contained a lot of journalists' communications and metadata obtained from several sources, including service providers these journalists used. This was disturbing enough, suggesting the new normal for leak investigations is targeting members of the press to work backwards to their anonymous sources.

But there's even more shadiness going on than is observable from that single indictment. A self-appointed freedom fighter with the unbelievable last name of Rambo was apparently trying to suss out journalist Ali Watkins' sources. (Watkins' email and communications data were subpoenaed during the Wolfe investigation.) The first hints that something weird and disturbing was going on behind the scenes was published by The Washington Post. It detailed the apparently rogue (and illegal) actions of a government employee prior to the delivery of the Wolfe indictment.

The actions of a Customs and Border Protection agent who confronted a reporter covering national security issues about her confidential sources are being examined by the CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

The agent, Jeffrey A. Rambo, contacted journalist Ali Watkins last June as the Trump administration was ramping up its investigations of unauthorized leaks to reporters, and he identified himself as a government agent.

Rambo met with Watkins at a restaurant in Washington after initially contacting her by email. A reporter taking such a meeting with a potential source would not be unusual.

But after he arrived, Rambo said the administration was eager to investigate journalists and learn the identity of their confidential sources to stanch leaks of classified information. He questioned Watkins broadly about her reporting and how she developed information, according to the people familiar with the incident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The "examination" is now an official investigation, the New York Times reports. More details about Rambo's actions have surfaced, suggesting flagrant abuse of sensitive government databases for the purpose of tracking down Watkins and pressuring her to divulge her sources.

The agent, Jeffrey A. Rambo, who usually worked in the San Diego area, was temporarily assigned at the time to the National Targeting Center, a facility in Sterling, Va., operated by Customs and Border Protection that stores data on the travel of millions of Americans and foreigners. Such information is supposed to be used only under strict rules by immigration and law enforcement officials.

Now the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general and investigators from the border agency are examining whether Mr. Rambo used the travel data improperly or illegally and whether anyone else was involved.

It doesn't appear anyone directed Rambo to meet with Watkins and attempt to discover the identities of her sources. From the statements given to the New York Times, it appears Rambo was simply a self-starter bursting with misdirected gumption.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Rambo handled or heard about an official F.B.I. request to the center for Mr. Wolfe’s travel records, and, if so, whether that led to the discovery that Ms. Watkins was his traveling companion. According to Ms. Watkins’s accounts, Mr. Rambo spoke with enthusiasm to her about Mr. Trump’s crackdown on leaks, telling her that “we’re finally going to be able to drain the swamp,” raising the possibility that he had searched the database for her records on his own initiative.

It really doesn't matter whether Rambo felt draining the swamp was his own personal mission or someone on the inside suggested he check the situation out. Either way, it's an abuse of Rambo's position and access. The DOJ started screwing the pooch with its demand for journalists' records and communications and Rambo came along to botch the job and clumsily bury the canine after performing a hit-and-run on his own career. This is scary stuff and it's not being helped by the anti-journalist attitude being fostered by the man at the top of the governmental food chain.

Filed Under: abuse of power, ali watkins, cbp, drain the swamp, james wolfe, jeffrey rambo, journalism, sources, yes his name is rambo

Appeals Court: Forcing A Teen To Masturbate So Cops Can Take Pictures Is A Clear Violation Of Rights

from the well-no-shit dept

I cannot imagine what it must be like as an appellate court judge to have to write these words (h/t Brad Heath):

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to [Trey] Sims, a reasonable police officer would have known that attempting to obtain a photograph of a minor child’s erect penis, by ordering the child to masturbate in the presence of others, would unlawfully invade the child’s right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

I don't know which is sadder: the fact that this case -- the absolute nadir (so far!) of stupid teen sexting prosecutions -- even exists or that the lower court somehow found in favor of the officer (now deceased) being sued.

A cop engaged in the act of producing child pornography by attempting to force a teen to arouse himself while surrounded by police officers supposedly for the purpose of matching the teen's erect penis to photos the cop already had in his possession as part of a sexting "investigation." The officer was told by prosecutors to do this, which shows the twisted logic of this abhorrent request didn't spring entirely from the mind of Detective David Abbott. He, however, did not turn down the prosecution's request. The prosecutor who ordered this "production" of evidence was Claiborne Richardson. Unfortunately, he has the sort of immunity cops like Abbott can only wish they had: absolute immunity. Richardson walks away from this with little more than reputational damage.

There's a judge out there somewhere with their name scrawled across a granted warrant request ordering a teenager to produce an erection for cops. Actually, there's two of them, though both go unnamed in the decision [PDF]. (Oral arguments are embedded at the bottom of the post.) From the dissent's[!] footnote:

On this record, search warrants were issued on June 3, 2014, and again on July 1, 2014, by two different magistrates. See Supp. J.A. 72, 76. The June warrant was the only one executed. In executing the June warrant, Abbott was unable to obtain some of the photos being sought. Because the prosecutor and the detective agreed that additional photos were necessary, Abbott was directed to seek the July warrant. That warrant was never executed and was voided.

And there's the judge who heard the prosecution's request to get this warrant and said that was fine. That judge's name is Jan Roltsch-Anoll. All of these justice system components worked together to put a teen in a room full of cops with the instructions to masturbate so a detective could take photos.

Abbott's representation was willing to take a chance on seeing the lower court's awful immunity decision upheld, despite there being nothing remotely sane -- much less Fourth Amendment-compliant -- about law enforcement's actions. Detective Abbott's survivors continue his fight for him as Abbott killed himself in late 2015 as police tried to arrest him for allegedly molesting two teens he met coaching youth hockey. (Make of that what you will.)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals finds nothing at all to like about Abbott's pleas for qualified immunity.

Abbott’s search directed at forcing Sims to achieve an erection intruded “upon an area in which our society recognizes a significantly heightened privacy interest.” See Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 767 (1985). Requiring Sims to masturbate in the presence of others, like searches involving physical penetration of genitalia, constituted “the ultimate invasion of personal dignity.” Amaechi, 237 F.3d at 363-64; see also King, 825 F.3d at 215.

Moreover, we observe that this sexually intrusive search was rendered more egregious by being conducted in a manner that would instill fear in Sims. See Edwards, 666 F.3d at 884-85. Here, Sims alleged that he was “surrounded” by three armed officers as he questioned whether he was required to submit to Abbott’s orders. Upon Abbott’s insistence, Sims ultimately attempted to comply. Sims further alleged that the search caused him to suffer emotional harm. Winston, 470 U.S. at 761-63 (explaining that intrusions without risk of physical harm nonetheless damage the individual’s sense of personal privacy and security). Accordingly, both the outrageous scope of the sexually intrusive search and the intimidating manner in which the search was conducted weigh strongly against any finding that the search was reasonable.

Nothing.

We cannot perceive any circumstance that would justify a police search requiring an individual to masturbate in the presence of others.

Abbott's estate argued the search violated no clear precedent. In other words, no comparative case had reached this level in the justice system and found ordering a teen to masturbate in front of police officers (while one of them photographed him) was a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court agrees, but notes there's a very good goddamn reason why there's no precedent exactly on point with this abysmal abuse of power.

We further observe that the Administrator is not entitled to invoke qualified immunity simply because no other court decisions directly have addressed circumstances like those presented here. See Clem, 284 F.3d at 553. For good reason, most outrageous cases of constitutional violations rarely are litigated. See K.H. ex rel. Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851 (7th Cir. 1990) (explaining that never before had there been a case accusing welfare officials of selling foster children into slavery, but those officials nevertheless would not be entitled to immunity). Abbott’s conduct affronted the basic protections of the Fourth Amendment, which at its core protects personal privacy and dignity against unjustified intrusion by governmental actors.

The dissent actually believes Abbott should still be granted immunity because a) he obtained warrants and b) he consulted with Commonwealth prosecutors (namely, Claiborne Richardson, whose reputation should be just as worthless as Abbott's) before obtaining them. If we follow this line of thinking, we are being asked to absolve all officers of egregious misconduct so long as certain procedural steps are followed before they go off the deep end. In fact, it asks to reward officers (and other government employees) who can find support from equally-questionable colleagues for their actions. According to the dissent, the whole rotten barrel should be excused from punishment because the rot was caused by several bad apples, rather than a single, rogue actor.

Even worse, if you're going to choose a qualified immunity hill to die on, why would you choose the one containing cops and prosecutors taking photographs of a masturbating teen? What possible public service could a decision in the detective's favor possibly provide? All it would do is create one more line an Appeals Court has yet to draw, allowing cops to force minors to strip and masturbate as long as they have a warrant. But that's what Judge Robert B. King apparently wants: no precedential declaration that forcing minors to masturbate in the presence of officers is a clear violation of established rights. But that's the way the system works. It so insulates police officers and prosecutors from accountability, no one at the bottom level of this pathetic prosecutorial food chain took any action to stop this from happening until after two warrants were issued and one was executed.

True fact: people in these positions can stop at any time. They don't need to wait for clearly-established precedent from high-level federal courts. No one forces prosecutors to suggest taking photos of a teen's erect penis and insane requests from prosecutors can always be turned down by law enforcement officers. But no one did anything to head off the clear rights violation. And once it was done, Detective Abbott tried to Nuremberg his way out of it and the Commonwealth's attorney -- Claiborne Richardson -- ducked out of the public eye as soon as the shit started hitting the fan. The legacy of everyone involved, from the detective executing the warrant to the juvenile court judge who granted time for it to be executed should be tarnished forever.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, abuse of power, claiborne richardson, david abbott, police, teens, trey sims

More Prosecutors Abusing Their Access And Power To Illegally Eavesdrop On Conversations

from the give-'em-enough-leash dept

Last time we checked in with (former) Brooklyn prosecutor Tara Lenich, she was facing state charges for abusing wiretap warrants to listen in on conversations between a police detective and one of her colleagues. This stemmed from what was termed a "personal entanglement" between her and the detective.

The wiretap warrants couldn't be obtained without a judge's signature. Since there was no probable cause for the warrant, no judge would sign them. Lenich had a solution. She just forged the judge's signature on the warrant. And then she kept forging judges' signatures, stretching out her illicit surveillance for more than a year, with a faked signature on every 30-day renewal.

Lenich is now facing federal charges. An indictment handed down by DOJ pretty much repeats the allegation of the state charges, detailing Lenich's long-running, extremely-personal wiretap operation.

As alleged in the indictment, for nearly 16 months between approximately June 2015 and November 2016, Lenich created fraudulent judicial orders as part of her illegal wiretapping scheme. Specifically, she forged the signatures of multiple New York State judges onto the illicitly created judicial orders -- orders that purportedly authorized the KCDA to intercept communications occurring over two cellular telephones. Lenich then misappropriated KCDA equipment to intercept, monitor, and record the communications to and from the two cellular telephones. In furtherance of her scheme, Lenich also created fraudulent search warrants, which she then used to unlawfully obtain text messages relating to the two cellular telephones.

Prosecutors have plenty of power and plenty of tools at their disposal. At some point, they'll be abused. Sometimes the damage is minimal and goes unnoticed. Other times, the abuse is discovered inadvertently. Inevitably, when the discovery is made, it's always something that's been happening for months or years, rather than a recent one-off where someone just made a very poor decision.

This time it's federal prosecutors who may be facing charges for illegal eavesdropping. It's not just a few prosecutors and a few isolated cases of misconduct. As Justin Glawe reports for The Daily Beast, it's an entire prosecutors' office and a whole lot of illegal activity.

A court-appointed investigator has found that the United States Attorney’s Office for Kansas is in possession of hundreds of phone and video recordings of communications between attorneys and their clients, inmates at a privately run prison facility in Leavenworth.

At least 700 attorneys are believed to have been recorded without their knowledge, the investigator’s report submitted to a federal court said. Last week Special Master David Cohen asked to expand his probe to determine whether prosecutors regularly listened to and compiled attorney-client conversations. Already, 227 phone call recordings and at least 30 videos of attorney-client meetings have been discovered in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Kansas City.

These recordings, captured by Securus equipment and obtained by prosecutors from private prison company CoreCivic, contained privileged conversations between inmates and their legal representatives. The US Attorney's dirty little eavesdropping secret was exposed when it hauled in a defense lawyer to accuse her of wrongdoing.

Jackie Rokusek told The Daily Beast she was called to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas City last August, where she said she was told by prosecutors that they had video evidence of her providing her client with confidential information about a drug ring case. Rokusek was given a computer and she watched the video, then she says she accidentally clicked on another file. A window opened, and a video showing another attorney meeting with their client at Leavenworth played. Stunned, Rokusek immediately went to the Federal Public Defender’s office in Kansas City and told them what she’d found.

Prosecutors were hoping to push Rokusek towards recusing herself from a case with this supposedly-damning recording. Instead, it showed federal prosecutors had been listening in on discussions between defense attorneys and their clients and possibly using these to stack the prosecution deck.

It's common knowledge prison phone calls and personal visits are recorded. Signs are posted prominently in prisons informing inmates and visitors of this fact. But just because recordings exist doesn't mean prosecutors can avail themselves of privileged conversations between lawyers and clients. Everything else is fair game.

But the recordings do exist. Securus and CoreCivic aren't going to shut off cameras and mics simply because there's a lawyer involved. And if the recordings exist, sooner or later someone's going to abuse this access. The only side that has this access is the prosecution. The side with the most power can eavesdrop with the willing assistance of those in the incarceration business. If they're careful, this abuse could go on indefinitely. If not, they'll enjoy a good run of slanted prosecutions before the hammer falls.

Filed Under: abuse of power, district attorneys, eavesdropping, forgeries, prison conversations, prosecutors, tara lenich, wiretaps

The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump

from the oh,-now-you-get-it dept

For many, many years, we've pointed out why there are problems with an executive branch that is too powerful. As we noted, laws should be designed as if the people you trust the least are in power. Of course, in an era of partisan red team/blue team politics, very few people seem to care or listen. Or, worse, their positions on executive power seem to shift based on whether "their guy" is in power or "the other guy" is in power. But in a situation that would be amusing if it weren't quite so terrifying, some of the biggest advocates for expanded executive power are suddenly freaking out about the very thing they helped bring about now that there's a President Trump.

Ryan Lizza, over at the New Yorker, has a post detailing the ways in which Trump could seize more power following a terrorist attack. And there are lots of ways. That, by itself, may be interesting, but what strikes me as even more interesting is that the people who he quotes are some of the very people who helped create this kind of world where the President has almost unlimited power in certain areas.

First up, he quotes Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith worked for George W. Bush, and while he's positioned himself as having pushed back against executive branch expansion, while he was there he did sign the Office of Legal Counsel memo that enabled the NSA to basically spy on all Americans' internet usage. That memo included the following:

We conclude that in the circumstances of the current armed conflict with al Qaeda, the restrictions set out in FISA, as applied to targeted efforts to intercept the communications of the enemy in order to prevent further armed attacks on the United States, would be an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutionally assigned powers of the President. The President has inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States. Congress does not have the power to restrict the President’s exercise of that authority.

And, more recently, Goldsmith has argued that we "need" a more invasive NSA which is crazy.

Yet, now, suddenly he's worried that Trump wants these orders to be struck down so he can blame the courts in the event of any terrorist attack, and then use that to claim more powers:

If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls. This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack. After a bad terrorist attack at home, politicians are always under intense pressure to loosen legal constraints. (This was even true for near-misses, such as the failed Underwear bomber, which caused the Obama administration to loosen constraints on its counterterrorism policies in many ways.) Courts feel these pressures, and those pressures will be significantly heightened, and any countervailing tendency to guard against executive overreaction diminished, if courts are widely seen to be responsible for an actual terrorist attack. More broadly, the usual security panic after a bad attack will be enhanced quite a lot—in courts and in Congress—if before the attack legal and judicial constraints are seen to block safety. If Trump assumes that there will be a bad terrorist attack on his watch, blaming judges now will deflect blame and enhance his power more than usual after the next attack.

Yeah, that's why we don't say silly things in OLC memos like "The President has inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States. Congress does not have the power to restrict the President’s exercise of that authority."

Next up in Lizza's piece is John Yoo. Yoo, somewhat famously, seemed to have never met an executive power he couldn't justify... until Trump came to power. Yoo, wrote the Bush adminstration's legal justifications for the CIA's torture program after 9/11. He's also argued that the NSA should be given a pass on the 4th Amendment because it takes too long to get a warrant. To him warrantless surveillance is no big deal.

And yet, now suddenly John Yoo is worried about "executive power run amok"?

As an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous, perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11 attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced interrogation of terrorist leaders. Likewise, I supported President Barack Obama when he drew on this source of constitutional power for drone attacks and foreign electronic surveillance.

But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump gave little sign that he understood the constitutional roles of the three branches, as when he promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would investigate Hillary Clinton. (Judge Neil M. Gorsuch will not see this as part of his job description.) In his Inaugural Address, Mr. Trump did not acknowledge that his highest responsibility, as demanded by his oath of office, is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Instead, he declared his duty to represent the wishes of the people and end “American carnage,” seemingly without any constitutional restraint.

Yoo goes on to point out a bunch of problems with some of Trump's actions (while admitting that others he finds perfectly fine).

While I guess it's kinda nice that Goldsmith and Yoo are finally recognizing that an all-powerful executive branch is problematic, they don't seem to recognize their own role in shaping that view of a uniquely powerful executive branch. It's time to own it, guys.

Filed Under: abuse of power, donald trump, executive power, jack goldsmith, john yoo, surveillance

Abuse Of Power: Laws Should Be Designed As If The People We Distrust The Most Are In Power

from the thinking-this-through dept

Support our crowdfunding campaign to help us keep covering stories like these!

There have been a few stories lately that have all combined to make a few key points crystallize in my mind, concerning various legal powers and the way that some people view them. It starts with an excellent article from Trevor Timm in which the title lays out the issue: Imagine Obama's national security policies in Trump's hands. After all, this is the guy who hasn't been shy in promising to settle scores if he's elected.

Trump’s abhorrent daily pronouncements about what he would do as president come at such a rate that we have become numb to them. We’ve lost count of the amount of times he’s claimed he’ll bring back waterboarding, or some forms of torture that are “so much worse” (something that would constitute a war crime). Or that he’ll not only kill terrorists, but members of their families as well – another war crime. (After some backlash for these statements, Trump claimed on Friday that he would still “obey the law”.)

Trump’s list of enemies could make Nixon, who saw no problem in using the NSA to spy on American dissidents and his political opponents, look tame in comparison. While one of the NSA’s mass surveillance programs was curtailed (but not eliminated) by the USA Freedom Act, there remain myriad programs that touch on vast numbers of Americans’ communications. The FBI still has carte blanche to look at NSA’s international intercepts for Americans caught up in its net, and just last week the New York Times reported that the NSA plans to remove key privacy protections from much of its surveillance data, so that it can be shared with other federal agencies without any administrative protections. Are these the types of powers we want in the hands of a Trump administration?

But the larger point of Timm's piece is not so much to freak out about a potential Trump presidency, but rather to highlight the ridiculous hypocrisy of basically every Presidential administration and their own party apparatus and supporters, who freak out about certain laws and powers when the other guy is in power, but gleefully make use of them when they are in power. It's the sort of "benevolent dictator" fallacy, in which people think that it's okay for them to make use of these laws, because surely "my guy" or "my team" won't abuse them and only use them for good purposes. But everyone thinks that -- and eventually the people in power won't be your team. In fact, it may be people who scare you.

Take, for example, the issue of extrajudicial executions via drones ("murder from the sky"). The Obama administration embraced this strategy gleefully, after it was started by the previous administration of George W. Bush. However, once Obama came into power it was expanded massively with no public debate or discussion and, importantly, with no guidelines for how and when it could be used. In fact, somewhat ridiculously underlining the point of this very post, during the heat of the 2012 campaign, when there was a chance that Mitt Romney might beat Obama in the election, the Obama administration finally put together "explicit rules" that would limit when Presidents could use drones to murder people. But once Romney lost, the administration suddenly lost interest in those guidelines. And while a few rules were eventually put in place, they seem to be arbitrarily applied.

This is just one example of why our laws should be designed to function as if the people we trust least are in power. Because eventually, the other side will be in power. And for all the trust you had in your team, think about how someone you don't trust might use it.

And we have plenty of examples of this. Just this weekend, the NY Times had an article about how South Korea has been aggressively using defamation laws to crack down on government dissent:

Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee warned against South Korea’s “increasing use of criminal defamation laws to prosecute persons who criticize government action.” Freedom House, a rights group based in Washington, criticized “the increased intimidation of political opponents” under Ms. Park, who took office in 2013.

“The government is especially sensitive about defending the personal reputation of the president,” said Park Kyung-sin, a professor of law at Korea University who has researched the issue.

This is the same South Korea that just embraced a right to be forgotten concept. Just think how that might be abused as well.

And think about South Korea when you hear Donald Trump talk about "opening up" defamation laws.

And, of course, this can apply to lots of other concepts as well. There's been a big push around the world for laws against "hate speech" -- which, in a vacuum, may sound like a good thing. However, what may sound like a good thing, if you assume that "hate speech" will be defined in a reasonable manner, can sound quite different in other contexts. As we've noted, historically, hate speech laws are used most frequently as a way for governments to punish people they don't like. And, just to drive this point home, look at how some people have been claiming that Mitt Romney's anti-Trump speech last week was a form of hate speech:

reminder to people who support hate speech bans: you never know who will be in charge of defining hate speech pic.twitter.com/eVhvmFIi8Z

— Sarah McLaughlin (@sarahemclaugh) March 3, 2016

And, of course, this applies to areas like copyright as well. When I talk about the ways in which copyright can be abused for censorship, many supporters of the copyright system like to mock me, claiming I'm just "supporting piracy" or some sort of nonsense like that. But copyright is frequently and regularly abused to censor people, and with power in the wrong hands it can be abused even further. Remember how Vladimir Putin (who Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for as a "strong leader, a powerful leader") used copyright law to suppress government dissent, raiding the offices of advocacy groups and opposition publications, claiming they were just there to check their computers for pirated software?

And of course, there's the big debate over encryption and whether or not Apple should be forced to provide the DOJ with the tools to hack its own systems. Are you really comfortable with that kind of power -- to force companies to hack into systems, to do forced updates that secretly remove security features -- in the hands of a President who has stated that those who disagree with him need "to be very careful"?

There are lots of reasons why we should be careful in passing laws -- including potential unintended consequences. But, even more to the point, we should be concerned about how those laws will be used by the people we trust the least. Because these are not theoretical concerns we're talking about. And it's distressing that those in power always seem to argue along with this when they're not in power, but forget it when they are. Remember how the Democrats dropped civil liberties from their official platform in 2012 after being a big part of the platform in 2008? I wonder why...

So, yes, perhaps the example of a possible Trump victory makes this clearer for some:

Guantanamo Bay prison, a symbol of torture and indefinite detention which should have been closed years ago, remains open. While Obama still says he wants to close it, his administration has enshrined the concept of indefinite detention into our system, and no matter who is president next has the opportunity to exploit that. Trump has vowed to expand Guantanamo, and according to a leaked memo obtained by CNN, his campaign even said he would detain American Isis “sympathizers” (whatever that means). This would of course be illegal and unconstitutional in a variety of ways, but given that Gitmo remains open and the last two administrations have faced no consequences for their unprecedented policies, how far could Trump go before he’s stopped?

But it should be a concern for everyone, even when their own friends are in power. Because we should always design laws in a manner that we'll still respect and trust in them even if the people we distrust the most are using them.

Support our crowdfunding campaign to help us keep covering stories like these!

Filed Under: abuse of power, copyright, defamation, donald trump, encryption, laws, politics, power

City Of Peoria Offers $125,000 Non-Apology To Owner Of Twitter Account That Parodied Its Mayor

from the mayor's-power-inversely-proportionate-to-skin-thickness dept

The taxpayers of Peoria, Illinois, will be footing the bill for the bumbling thuggishness of their thin-skinned mayor and an all-too-compliant police force.

Last April, Peoria mayor Jim Ardis somehow stumbled across a parodic Twitter account run by local Jon Daniel. Taking offense to the account's content, Ardis managed to talk the police department into raiding Daniel's apartment, despite the chief of police informing the mayor that no criminal activity had actually occurred.

Backlash ensued. The mayor took to the airwaves to defend his actions, claiming the parody account used up all the free speech, leaving him no way to defend himself against tweets suggesting he was "trill as fuck."

A lawsuit ensued. The ACLU took up Daniel's case and sued the mayor, the city and various law enforcement officers. Faced with the possibility of increased damages if the case went to trial, the city has decided to pay Daniel $125,000 for actions it took because its mayor couldn't take a joke.

The central Illinois city of Peoria tentatively agreed Wednesday to pay $125,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a man whose home was raided by police over a Twitter account he created depicting the mayor as a lewd fan of drugs and alcohol.

The deal includes no admission that Peoria did anything wrong, but it calls for the city to send its police department a directive emphasizing that parody does not fall under an Illinois statute regulating false personation of a public official, which was used to obtain warrants to arrest Daniel.

As is the case with nearly every government lawsuit settlement, the accused get to walk away without admitting wrongdoing while allowing other people to pick up the tab.

The directive agreed to by the city in the settlement is the tiniest concession of wrongdoing. And, as such, it's redundant. It simply demands the police enforce the law as it is written, rather than the mayor's reading of it through the haze of butthurt and misdirected indignation.

In consideration of the releases set forth in Paragraph 6 above, Defendant agrees to implement the False Personation Statute Directive (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), including but not limited to announcing and distributing Exhibit 1 to all current City of Peoria police officers at roll call and certifying to the ACLU that they have done so. Defendant City of Peoria further agrees that it will continue to abide by the terms of the False Personation Statute Directive until and unless a specific change in circumstances, such as a modification in the governing law or a change in the interpretation of the law by the Peoria County State’s Attorney’s office, provides Defendant a good faith belief that adherence to the terms of the False Personation Statute Directive are no longer appropriate.

This reminder shouldn't be needed and will doubtless be greeted with various levels of eye-rolling when delivered to police officers. The cops that weren't involved will know the actions taken on behalf of Ardis were wrong. And those who did participate will resent being talked down to by a settlement stipulation. The underlying problem with this directive is that -- as noted above -- the involved officers already knew Daniel's parody account didn't break the law cited in support of the raid of his apartment.

Here's what Chief Settingsgaard emailed to the mayor before the raid took place.

Mayor/Manager, I reviewed this matter with Detective Feehan. He is in the process of shutting down the account as you saw from my last email. This phony Twitter account does not constitute a criminal violation in that no threats are made. I'm not sure if it would support a civil suit for defamation of character. I'm not an expert in the civil arena but my recollection is that public officials have very limited protection from defamation. I asked (Feehan) about identity theft and he advised it did not qualify because the statute requires the use of personal identifying information such as a social security number, DOB, etc., and a financial gain form (sic) the use of that information. Twitter does not require identifying information other than an email address and name, and there appears to be no financial gain.

And yet, the police did raid Daniel's apartment. Rereading the law at roll call isn't going to prevent abuse in the future. The Peoria Police Department has already indicated its willingness to ignore the law if the right person asks. With this settlement, it's basically buying its way out of accountability.

Filed Under: abuse of power, defamation, jim ardis, jon daniel, parody, peoria, trill as fuck

Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable

from the good-people-sometimes-do-bad-things dept

Jennifer Granick, a well known (and brilliant) civil liberties fighter (currently at Stanford) recently co-wrote an article with Chris Sprigman about why the NSA's surveillance efforts were almost certainly both illegal and unconstitutional. Just a few weeks later, she got to have dinner with NSA boss Keith Alexander, which she's now written about. As you might imagine, it appears that they didn't agree on very much about the NSA's surveillance efforts. Basically, Alexander more or less argues that the NSA has to do what it does to "protect Americans" and that the agency is filled with good people who don't want to invade the privacy of Americans.

I have no doubt that Gen. Alexander loves this country as much as I do, or that his primary motivation is to protect our nation from terrorist attacks. “Never again,” he said over dinner. But it may be that our deep differences stem from a fundamental disagreement about human nature. I think Gen. Alexander believes that history is made by great individuals standing against evil. I believe that brave people can make a difference, but that larger inexorable forces are often more important: history, economics, political and social systems, the environment. So I believe that power corrupts and that good people will do bad things when a system is poorly designed, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. More than once, my dinner companions felt the need to reassure the DIRNSA that none of us thought he was a bad man, but that we thought the surveillance policies and practices were bad, and that eventually, inevitably, those policies and practices would lead to abuse.

She goes on to note that the NSA's (and the administration's) further defense of the efforts have only made her point even stronger (contrary to General Alexander's promise to Granick that the upcoming revelations would show that the NSA's actions were perfectly reasonable). As she notes later in the piece, the history of abuses is well known, even if Alexander likes to ignore it:

Of course, we see mission creep – once you build the mousetrap of surveillance infrastructure, they will come for the data.  First it was counterterrorism, then it was drug investigations, then it was IRS audits. Next it will be for copyright infringement.

And of course, there also will be both “inadvertent” and intentional abuse, inevitable but difficult to discover.  Bored analysts do things like spy on women using surveillance cameras and listen to American GIs overseas having phone sex with their loved ones back home.  Or an FBI agent may investigate strange but not unlawful emails on behalf of a family friend, leading to a sex scandal that brings down the Director of the CIA.  These surveillance tools and information databases may one day end up in the hands of a J. Edgar Hoover and a President demanding embarrassing information about her political opponents, information that, in an age of mass surveillance, the government most assuredly will have somewhere in its treasure trove.

There's a reason we make it hard for the government to spy on people. We know that the temptation to abuse such powers will be strong and abuse will inevitably occur. That's the nature of a free society. And it's a problem when people like General Alexander think that the best way to "protect" a free society is to take away the very factors that make it one.

Filed Under: abuse of power, jennifer granick, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance

EFF Finds Evidence Of Over 40,000 Intelligence Violations By The FBI Since 9/11

from the yes,-40,000 dept

We've pointed out, multiple times, how the FBI has been caught abusing the Patriot Act with things like using National Security Letters to get information it had no legal right to obtain. Even worse, when President Obama issued a blanket absolution for the FBI breaking the law it seemed like no one batted an eye. In fact, you may not have even heard about it, because the press just didn't think that breaking the law to spy on Americans is really that big of a deal.

So, once again, it seems unlikely that this story will get much attention, but the EFF has, via a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, determined that the FBI may have committed over 40,000 intelligence violations since 9/11, 2001.

Yes: 40,000.

On top of that, the research uncovered evidence of the FBI "lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant." And yet, why aren't we hearing much about this? Why aren't there stories everywhere covering this massive abuse by the government? Instead, we just get Congress rubber stamping a renewal of the Patriot Act, without even taking into consideration what's happening.

Filed Under: abuse of power, due process, fbi, patriot act, privacy, warrants

Congress Slams Kevin Martin For Abuse Of Power

from the good-thing-they-waited-until-he-was-done dept

FCC boss Kevin Martin is nearing the end of his tenure at the FCC, looking ready to jump into a lucrative industry job or (some have speculated) explore the possibility of running for elected office. We've been among his many critics over the year -- specifically for his rather blatant efforts to side with the telcos, even when his views are exactly the opposite for telcos when compared to cable companies. The worst, however, may have been his awkward attempt to not just bury an analysis that showed that a la carte cable would be more expensive -- but to come out with a totally different report claiming the opposite.

Congress has now released a report slamming Martin for widespread abuses of power during his chairmanship, noting his efforts to force the FCC to bury the original report and publish the new report. He ordered the group to rewrite the report with the opposite findings and demoted the guy who wrote the original report. The Congressional report also noted that Martin had failed to properly oversee various telco slushfunds. You know all those extra "fees" the telcos charge? Basically it all goes into a big fund controlled by the telcos (not the gov't) with almost no oversight. The Congressional report specifically dings Martin for his oversight (or lack thereof) of the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund. Apparently, Martin ignored plenty of evidence that the telcos were overcharging, and let them just keep collecting. And, on top of that the FCC did little to actually audit the program.

It's also worth noting that Congress decided to release the report without holding hearings, noting: "due to the climate of fear that pervades the FCC...we found that key witnesses were unwilling to testify or even to have their names become known." Good thing they got that figured out just about a month before he's leaving office...

Filed Under: a la carte, abuse of power, congress, kevin martin
Companies: congress, fcc