LAPD Sees Your Reform Efforts, Raises You $20 Million In Bullets, Snacks, And Surveillance

from the reading-cards-like-they're-reading-a-room dept

The Los Angeles Police Department is reform-resistant. This isn't the same as reform-proof, but more separates "resistant" from "proof" in this case than the misleading labels promising varying degrees of water resistance placed on watches and cellphones.

The LAPD has endured decades of bad press with barely an uptick in performance or community orientation. The LAPD is best known for beating minorities until riots happen. With a wave of police reform efforts sweeping the nation -- many of them looking to spend less on police violence and more on things that actually help the community -- the LAPD has issued a tone-deaf demand for more money to spend on things residents are complaining about.

The LAPD has filed a massive proposal requesting more than $18 million in budget increases in order to pay for surveillance programs, bullets, and … snacks.

The Stop LAPD Spying Coalition released a letter on Monday blasting the 183-page report. The proposal requests nearly $18.44 million to support many of the things that the community has spent recent years protesting. The letter, which was co-signed by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles, describes the LAPD’s list of demands as a “disgusting insult to hundreds of thousands of people who took the streets last summer."

What else in the LAPD's "more please" proposal? $2 million to spend on social media monitoring, something it's asking for right after it was reported LAPD officers are demanding social media information from people they've accosted or otherwise harassed into a "consensual" conversation. That's in addition to $450,000 in licenses for social media monitoring software to better make use of this new data officers are collecting while out in the proverbial field.

The letter [PDF] from the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition doesn't pull any punches. It compiles a long list of the stupid, counterproductive demands the department is making -- ones not connected in any way to improving relations with the communities they serve.

In true Newspeak, here's the fucking news: the LAPD wants more money to be thrown at its desire to throw bullets at people.

Over $12 million for new trainings in addition to $461,850 in bullets at $17 per round to shoot away at trainings and $492,850 in “overtime funds to address field jail training” for mass arrests

This won't make the LAPD more efficient killers. And it won't make them better guardians of people's rights, starting with the right to protest. What it will do is encourage pulling the trigger until clips run dry and mass processing of people arrested for (the most part) expressing their displeasure with their current police force.

And who wouldn't applaud the blending of police officers and the military like so much corn and gasoline?

$348,130 for a new staff officer whose full-time role will be to permanently coordinate with “military” forces and facilitate their local deployment

And perhaps the most "police" thing of all, the guys are getting kind of hungry:

$100,000 for snacks that “personnel can grab quickly and take with them,” apparently enabled through new “emergency use credit cards”

Love to see "snacks" and "emergency" linked together in a sentence asking for $100,000. It sounds like an insulin request but it's actually about propping up the Frito-Lay Economy.

Once you get past all the "screw your rights and please catch bullets" parts of the LAPD's proposal, you get to the part where the LAPD claims to be saving money by spending money… or something.

Chief Moore’s cover memo raises many questions about the cost of these proposals. As he notes, LAPD previously claimed these same reforms required over $66 million. He writes that this larger figure “counted all costs – even if the resources were currently available” (p. 5) which presumably means LAPD double-counted the cost of resources that it already possessed. But one sentence later, Chief Moore claims the $18.44 million estimate amounts to a $48 million “reduction in cost projection.” It is unclear whether the $18.44 million is in fact a “reduction” or simply accurate accounting. But LAPD’s comfort switching numbers so large without real explanation speaks to how little financial scrutiny they expect from you. Additionally, it is unclear how much of the $18.44 million are yearly versus one-time costs.

Good luck sussing that out, whether you're an activist group or city oversight. The LAPD is used to asking questions, not answering them. A sea change in public receptiveness to cops being assholes doesn't appear to have had any effect on LAPD (and I use this term super-loosely) leadership. Cop business will proceed as usual, recent public antipathy notwithstanding.

So, what else is new? Nothing. But it needs more money. The LAPD says its cool with alleged transparency efforts like body cams, but only if it gets to keep harvesting data from tons of automatic plate readers and its take on stop-and-frisk, which now apparently involves requests for social media info.

And it appears the city did what it could to ensure the LAPD could have its millions without too much interference from the hoi polloi.

The proposals were made public in an 183-page document sent late in the afternoon on Friday, September 24, and the proposals will be voted on the morning of Tuesday, September 28. This is just over one business day to digest and respond to the 183-page proposals, and even that time period is only for people who happen to have received the proposal immediately because they subscribe to this board’s agenda by email. The public’s only opportunity to comment would be if they received that online agenda and then responded either by emails sent before 5 p.m. on Monday, September 27, or by becoming one of the dozen or so individuals who happen to secure a brief public comment slot during this board’s 45-minute public comment period, before the agenda item is even introduced.

Only in the government can you give the finger to your employers (taxpayers) and end up better off during FYWhatever. The LAPD likely knows what the public is asking of it. But it also knows that not caring what they think will at least give it the same budget it had in 2020 and do little to curb its surveillance excesses. At some point, the LAPD's city oversight will have to actually do its job. Until then, it's just signing off on the same law enforcement bullshit that has kept the city in constant turmoil since the Watts riots nearly five decades ago.

Filed Under: budget, lapd, police reform, reform, surveillance

Biden Cuts $35 Billion From New Broadband Plan To Appease The GOP

from the good-luck-with-all-that dept

As we've been noting, there's a long runway between the Biden Administration's vague but promising broadband plan and actual implementation. And there's millions of dollars and literally thousands of lobbyists hard at work trying to make sure that the plan, whatever it winds up looking like, doesn't disrupt the comfortable, status quo that is the regionally-monopolized and dysfunctional US broadband market.

I've already seen some evidence said lobbyists have had some success weakening plan language that would limit the amount of "overbuilding" (read: competition) to existing monopolized markets. 83 million Americans live under a broadband monopoly, and incumbent giants AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want any and all spending focused exclusively on giving them subsidies for unserved areas, instead of building out vibrant competition in their existing footprints.

Activists are also growing annoyed with the fact that the Biden administration still hasn't fully staffed the FCC and appointed a new permanent boss, without which the agency can't reverse the net neutrality repeal, or most of the Trump FCC's butchering of the agency's consumer protection authority. Giving the Canadian Ambassadorship to a a top Comcast lobbyist appears to be happening at a quicker cadence.

Meanwhile, the Biden plan overall is already starting to shrink as his administration tries to get the 10 GOP voted needed to nab a 60 vote majority. As a result, the $100 billion plan is officially now a $65 billion plan, and shrinking:

"The White House informed Republicans of Biden's willingness to cut $35 billion from his broadband proposal in a memo on Friday. "We believe we can still achieve universal access to affordable high-speed Internet at your lower funding level, though it will take longer," the White House told Republicans, according to NPR. "Any funding agreement would need to be paired with reforms to ensure these investments create good jobs, promote greater competition, and close the digital divide."

Even with cuts there's still no evidence that the GOP is going to get on board.

While there are plenty of Democrats in close allegiance to the telecom sector, the modern GOP broadband platform as a whole is utterly indistinguishable from the goals of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast in every respect. They oppose any meaningful oversight (be it net neutrality or privacy), oppose voter-approved community broadband, support absolutely every merger that comes down the road regardless of harm, and despite talking a lot about their breathless dedication to closing the digital divide, can rarely even admit that a lack of broadband competition and high consumer prices are real problems.

It's very unlikely that a party whose positions are utterly indistinguishable from telecom monopolists are going to bend on any of this, something Senator Ed Markey has been quick to make clear:

"Despite President Biden’s efforts to engage with Republicans, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to negotiate in good faith with Democrats to confront the intersecting crises we face. We need to make the investments now to help our country and communities rebuild and recover, as well to ensure that we never return to the status quo that left too many Americans behind and created the worsening climate crisis. Now is the time to go big, to go bold, and to go fast. This is not the time for half-measures, half-spending or foot-dragging."

Despite having broad public support (58% of voters support passing the entire infrastructure bill without GOP support), it seems extremely unlikely a broadband bill gets the necessary 60 votes unless it's butchered to the point of uselessness, which under-delivers and undermines the Democrat chances of re-election in 2022 and 2024 (another major reason for GOP opposition). That leaves killing the filibuster, or shoveling an infrastructure bill through via reconciliation rules, the former of which seems unlikely, and the latter of which is far from a given.

Filed Under: appeasement, broadband plan, budget, congress, fcc, infrastructure, investment, joe biden

Spending Bill Would Give Administration Direct Control Of Surveillance Spending

from the Congress-votes-to-cut-itself-out-as-spending-middleman dept

We've been given six more years of Section 702 collections, thanks to many, many Congressional representatives who just couldn't find it in their hearts to tell the dear old NSA "No." An extension was granted to push the "debate" into 2018, but there was no debate to be had. Instead, oversight committees on both sides of the Congressional aisle used this time to push out zero-reform renewal packages that actually made Section 702 worse.

After a brief, two-week consideration of opposing views, things moved ahead as though the program had never been abused by the NSA and had never "inadvertently" swept up US persons' communications without a warrant. The same politicians who complained about the NSA's power being in the hands of Donald Trump were the ones who voted for the passage of "reform" bills increasing the agency's reach and grasp.

Now, Congressional reps are granting the Trump Administration even greater control of US spy powers. The House spending bill contains an alteration to the language covering the Intelligence Community's use of federal funds. The funding of surveillance programs is already secret. The NSA's infamous "black budget" makes it impossible for citizens to see how -- and how much -- money is being spent spying on the world.

But the book isn't closed to everybody. If the agency or the administration wants to shift funding around, it must first inform Congress. This theoretically gives Congress veto power on spending changes Congress hasn't pre-approved. The disclosures are, of course, done in secret and there's no way to know how often Congress blocks spending changes, but at least it's some form of oversight. That will no longer be the case if the spending bill is approved, as Ryan Grim reports for The Intercept.

The House spending bill released Wednesday would allow President Donald Trump, or people under him, to secretly shift money to fund intelligence programs, a break with 70 years of governing tradition.

Since 1947, section 504 of the National Security Act has mandated that the administration inform Congress if it intends to shift money from one intelligence project to another, if the new project has not been authorized by Congress. That notification can be — and almost always is — done in secret, but it is at least a minimal check on executive power.

The spending bill currently under consideration, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, breaks with that tradition, allowing funds to “be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947.”

This would make the entire "black budget" discretionary, overseen only by the people moving the money around. Congressional control of agency budgets would become a historical artifact, something long-term reps could gaze back at nostalgically as what's left of Intelligence Community oversight crumbles into nonexistence.

Filed Under: black budget, budget, house, oversight, privacy, surveillance

Chicago Alderman's Plan On City Budget Crisis: Let's Just Charge Uber And Lyft More To Fix It

from the that's-not-a-plan dept

Big city budgets are hellaciously complicated affairs. That much is obvious, but the actual level of management of a budget likely goes far beyond what the average member of the public realizes. Even with that stipulated, the city of Chicago's budget is an absolute mess. Budget shortfalls abound for any number of reasons, ranging from bloated payrolls, to pet projects that have missed the mark on cost projections, to a shortage of income related to police and parking activity from our infamous redlight cameras and our equally infamous privatization of parking meters. Anyone looking to solve this budget crisis is likely to begin pulling their hair out immediately, wondering where to even begin.

Except for Alderman Anthony Beale, longtime stooge for the taxi industry, who has suggested an easy fix: just go crazy in taxing the hell out of innovative ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.

Beale, who chairs the City Council Transportation Committee, said he hopes Emanuel will revisit the idea of higher fees and tougher regulations on the burgeoning ride share industry as part of budget talks for 2018. He said the move would help even the playing field for cab drivers finding it increasingly difficult to compete. Beale wanted a per-ride charge of $1 on ride share companies as part of Emanuel’s 2016 budget. Instead, Emanuel raised the charge from 30 cents to 52 cents per ride.

“We should have went for the dollar and we negotiated down to the 50-cent (fee),” Beale said Wednesday. “Now here we are again, going for the dollar. And so, I think we could have been much further along if we had just stuck to our guns and gone for the dollar a couple years ago.”

Chicago has been a battleground of sorts in this fight between taxis and ride-sharing services. The per-ride fee instituted in 2016 came on the heels of a city-wide protest by taxis in 2015, where cabs refused to pick up fares in the downtown area and instead just honked their horns a bunch while those of us that work down here tried to actually do our jobs. The protest was designed not so much to rally public support to their side, as the public's voting with their wallets is what got us here in the first place. Rather, it was designed simply to be a pain in the city's ass enough for city officials to write in higher per-ride fees into its licensing legal framework.

And to that extent, it worked. The fee went up by a third or so. For Beale to lament the lack of a 300% increase in fees and, more fallaciously, to frame the desire for that increase as a budget solution when it is nothing of the sort, is fairly laughable. The real reason for Beale's angst is that he is the errand boy of Chicago's taxi companies, plain and simple. This is pure entrenched player protectionism and regulatory capture in reverse, with taxi companies looking to regulate more innovative and useful companies to death, or at least into some sort of insane fairness coma.

That isn't how government is supposed to be done, but it sure is the Chicago way.

Filed Under: anthony beale, budget, chicago, ride sharing
Companies: lyft, uber

House Budget Proposal Includes The Creation Of The United States Space Corps.

from the knee-deep-in-the-debt dept

There has been much in the way of focus on all the different ways Congress has devised to fight with itself as of recent, with most of that revolving around stupid partisan bickering and political posturing. Still, there are real proposals on the table, and currently the 2018 defense budget is one of them. We've already talked about some recent changes in DoD recruitment strategies that seek to get with the times, as it were. But where those changes were made to stave off dwindling rosters of soldiers at CYBERCOM, the House proposal for 2018 includes the creation of a brand new military branch.

Don't get your hopes up too high about becoming a space marine quite yet. But if the House of Representatives' version of the 2018 defense budget goes through, you may soon be able to enlist in the US Space Corps.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) has breathed new life into those old plans by including a provision in the House version of the 2018 US defense budget that would create a separate military service dedicated to the cause of space as a warfare domain: the US Space Corps. It would also create a separate joint command, the US Space Command, breaking the role out of the US Strategic Command much in the way that was done with the US Cyber Command.

The biggest surprise in all of this might well be that it took this long, actually. Cyber Command's battleground is mere decades old, whereas we have been exploring space for more than half a century. Still, there is something unnerving about formalizing Earth's place at the cosmic table as a potential war theater. That said, the proposal does enjoy the rare consensus of bi-partisan support and it's not difficult to understand why. More than ever, we rely on assets outside of our immediate atmosphere to power all sorts of things key to our national security and power. The branch that currently oversees space defense and strategy, the Air Force, is no longer seen as capable of handling the job.

There’s been nothing shortsighted about this. We started working on it vigorously in September, and we’ve had countless meetings with a number of experts who have advised us as to how this should be construed. GAO has done three studies on this, all of which tell us that you cannot maintain the current organizational construct of the Air Force and solve the acquisition problems and the operational problems that we have. The Air Force is like any other bureaucracy. They don’t want to change.

At some level, this was inevitable. We are humans and, where we go, we fight. So don your helmets and fire up that chainsaw, future space marines, because the next battleground may be the inky blackness of the void. If so, it seems the House of Representatives, at least, wants to be prepared for it.

Filed Under: budget, space, space corp., us government

Frustrated Public Defender Appoints Governor -- And Licensed Attorney -- To Provide Indigent Defense

from the the-man-in-charge-of-sticking-it-to-others-gets-stuck dept

Providing public defenders for criminal defendants may be Constitutional but it certainly isn't popular. When states look for places to cut budgets, far too often they find trimming public funding for defense lawyers is an easy way to find extra money without suffering any significant public backlash. After all, this is just money being wasted defending guilty people, right? It's just shady lawyers ensuring criminals are back on the street as swiftly as possible by exploiting loopholes in the system citing violations of their clients' Constitutional rights. To many members of the public, this is money that could be better spent elsewhere -- even as they enjoy the benefits of the Constitutional amendments (4th-6th, mostly), public defenders are constantly protecting from additional damage.

So, a right guaranteed by the Constitution becomes a privilege extended by the grace of the state, subject to clawback and only offering defendants the promise that someone with an already-unmanageable caseload will try to fit them in somewhere. Meanwhile, defendants who can't make bail get to sit around in a jail cell until someone from an underfunded public defender's office can attempt to suss out the weaknesses in the prosecution's case in between all the other cases they're already falling behind on.

Over in Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon is currently being sued by the state's public defenders after threatening to withhold more than three-quarters of its budget increase.

The Missouri Public Defender Commission is suing Governor Jay Nixon (D). Director Michael Barrett claims it’s unconstitutional for Nixon to withhold $3.5 million of the state public defender office’s $4.5 million budget.

“We’re an independent department within the third branch of government, the judiciary. I don’t think the Governor’s withhold authority gives him an excuse to reach across to a co-equal branch of government and essentially weaken that branch because revenues are down,” says Barrett.

Barrett says the state is required to fund defense for those who can’t afford a lawyer.

“Before you fund parks, before you fund trail expansion, before you fund a farmer’s market in Jefferson City, you have to meet your obligations,” says Barrett. “Each lawyer in the system has anywhere between 150-225 cases. The only way to handle them is essentially to process the cases. Each client is not receiving an investigation of their case, meeting with the lawyer, getting discovery done, motion practice. That’s what our attorneys have an ethical obligation to do for each and every client, but because there’s too many clients and not enough lawyers, there’s just not enough time in the day to represent each client ethically.”

People like parks and farmer's markets. Criminal defendants, not so much. The governor knows this, which is why he feels safe threatening the budget of an office that ensures the state meets its Constitutional obligations to its citizens, rather than PR-friendly niceties enjoyed by most voters. (Remember, felons can't vote. This is a factor.)

The lawsuit isn't Michael Barrett's only weapon in his arsenal. He's using an obscure state law to make Governor Jay Nixon experience firsthand the results of his budget cuts.

In his "Delegation of Representation" letter [PDF], Barrett first details the harm Nixon has done to the state's public defender's office.

Seven years age, your office vetoed Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 37, which would have provided caseload relief to an overburdened public defender system. In denying that relief, you acknowledged that MSPD was operating "under significant stresses" and committed to working with the General Assembly to fix the problem, but never did.

Instead, you have repeatedly cut funding for an indigent defense system that continues to rank 49th in the U.S., with a budget that the consumer price index indicates has less value now than it did in 2009. After cutting $3.47 million from public defense in 2015, you now cite fiscal discipline as reason to again restrict MSPD's budget, this time by 8.5%. However, and despite claims that revenues are considerably less than expected, you did not restrict a single dollar from your own budget, and the average withhold from 12 of your executive agencies does not even add up to one half of one percent.

Barrett points out that funding continues to drop while case intake increases. Faced with the option of shirking its Constitutional duties, the MSPD office has no choice but to use utilize an option it's never used before.

To avoid having to close one or more offices, the remaining option is to consider the use of Section 600.042.5, which gives the Director of the Public Defender System the authority to "[d]elegate the legal representation of any person to any member of the state bar of Missouri."

This could be used to compel private lawyers to provide public defense in order for the state to meets its Constitutional obligations. But, as Barrett points out, this hardly seems fair, as private lawyers aren't responsible for problems being faced by his office. Luckily for Barrett, Governor Jay Nixon -- like many politicians -- is also a licensed lawyer.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 600.0425 and as Director of the Missouri State Public Defender System tasked with carrying out the State's obligation to ensure that poor people who face incarceration are afforded competent counsel in their defense, I hereby appoint you, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Bar No. 29603, to enter your appearance as counsel of record in the attached case.

Sure, it's a stunt. But it's a good one. It highlights -- very publicly -- the dilemma the public defender's office faces. Governor Jay Nixon had several options on how to respond, with the best one being to suck it up, take the job and defend the hell out of the defendant in this case. After all, he's a lawyer. Maybe in doing so he'd gain some insight into the work done by public defenders and why they're an important part of a functioning justice system.

But that's not how Jay Nixon rolls. He's chosen the worst option -- the one that highlights how little he cares for the Constitutional rights of accused constituents.

“It is well established that the public defender does not have the legal authority to appoint private counsel,” said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste.

[...]

Nixon, a former attorney general, said he supports indigent criminals having legal representation, but that Barrett cannot appoint a private attorney without the consent of the attorney.

"Supports" legal representation for the poor... but only in words, not in actions, deeds, or budget lines.

Barrett's letter quoted that part of the law in full, and it says nothing about receiving consent first. A former prosecutor doesn't buy Nixon's "you can't make me" argument.

Retired prosecutor Riley Bock of New Madrid, who is chairman of the public defender commission, said he is not sure how Nixon can argue against what the statute says.

The state's Supreme Court does appear to side with the governor, though.

The Supreme Court of Missouri considered and rejected the suggestion that the state public defender had the statutory authority to appoint members of the bar to work for free, thus closing the door on the commission’s attempt to devise a regulatory remedy for the workload crisis. However, in closing one door, the court may have opened another, albeit reluctantly, in its reaffirmation of the holding in Wolff v. Ruddy that “[l]awyers, as members of a public profession, accept the duty to perform public service without compensation.”

The findings seem to be at odds, but the court wants a system of consent, rather than compelled compliance. It would be tough for a private attorney to argue there's no requirement that they take the unpaid job, though, which would make acquiring this consent much easier. Unfortunately, the court's solution -- after deferring to legislators to fix the problem they're apparently unwilling to fix -- is to make the criminal justice system more inconsistent.

Given the scale of the problem and the corresponding burden to the private bar, the court confessed that it was reluctant to require private attorneys to take on indigent defense cases without compensation. Instead, the court endorsed caseload-reducing measures described in the commission’s regulation, including asking prosecutors to agree not to seek jail time in certain cases, determining cases or categories of cases in which private lawyers will be appointed, and removing cases from the trial docket until counsel is available.

Barrett's legal gambit may fail but his point remains: nearly everyone involved in the process thinks the right to counsel is an expendable right -- everyone except those asked to provide this service while being overworked and underpaid, and those facing criminal charges. But Jay Nixon -- and countless other politicians -- have shown rights are only rights as far as the government is willing to respect them. And here, as in other places, that respect doesn't go very far.

Filed Under: budget, jay nixon, michael barrett, missouri, public defenders

Complete Failure: Chicago's Speed Camera Traps Fail To Bring In The Revenue Mayor Emanuel Counted Upon

from the fast-cash dept

Speed cameras, just like their red-light camera brethren, have been pretty well established as nothing more than revenue machines for local municipalities. Their application results in a myriad of issues, such as the fact that the cameras don't work, not to mention that the cameras don't work, oh, and the cameras don't work and the companies behind them might try to fudge the evidence if you dispute a ticket. The excuse for these cameras that don't work has always been that they are designed to make the roads safer under the theory that if motorists know that the cameras exist, they will be less likely to speed. That supposed justification is belied by two facts. The first is that some people who have tried to warn motorists that the cameras exist have been dragged to court for doing so, which sort of defeats the entire supposed purpose of the cameras. The second fact that disproves the justification is that Chicago just can't help going all Chicago on itself.

Local reporters have the glorious story of the latest Chicago budget crisis that has Mayor Emanuel scrambling for only one reason: Chicago motorists are way better behaved than he'd planned for in his previous budget.

You heard that right: Good behavior is bad for the budget. Real bad, reports CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine. CBS 2 has learned the speed cameras caught far fewer speeders than expected. According to the Mayor's 2015 Budget Overview, there have been "lower than expected violation rates."

How much lower? Fifty million dollars lower. Emanuel's administration had figured on $90 million in fines to help balance this year's budget, but they can only count on $40 million. That's a $50 million shortfall, putting pressure on the next spending plan.

Think about the logic here for a moment: Rahm Emanuel wrote a spending budget for the third largest city in the country that relied on a certain revenue number from speed cameras. Where's the incentive for better behavior on the road in that? There is none. The fact is that Chicago drivers are far better behaved than the city expected. That's an outcome you'd think the city would be celebrating. Instead, it's considered a negative, because the speed cameras were never about safety, they were only a method to fill the city's coffers to the tune of milliions of dollars. That isn't so much public policy as it is an extortion racket that happens to have failed.

"It was a combination of the camera company’s salesmanship and the city's greed," says camera critic Barnet Fagel.

You may not want to forgive the camera company their sales tactics, but how much do you really want to fault them? They're a large company beholden to nothing beyond the profit motive. They can't be expected to have the best interests of a city's population at heart. The Chicago city government on the other hand? Most citizens likely didn't elect Mayor Emanuel out of a sense of sadomasochism or the theory that we all just have a bit too much money in our pockets. Stories like these are among the reasons that Emanuel isn't considered invulnerable in the upcoming mayoral election.

Filed Under: budget, chicago, rahm emanuel, speed cameras

NSA Funding Bill Passed By Senate Intelligence Community Gives Agency Extra Cash To Hunt 'Insider Threats'

from the because-you-can't-be-'protected'-unless-you're-discovered,-amiri dept

An earlier attempt to defund NSA programs via amendments to the Defense Dept. appropriations bill went nowhere (but by a much narrower margin than many expected), and now it's up to both the House and Senate to push bills through reauthorizing the NSA's budget.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has already given its thumbs up to NSA spending, advancing a bill that contains a little something extra for its favorite agency.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has advanced legislation to reauthorize funding for the National Security Agency and surveillance programs.

The bill includes new funding for technology to combat "insider threats" and leaks of classified information.

The committee approved the legislation in a 13-2 vote late Tuesday.

The NSA's budget is currently $10.2 billion (which we know thanks to leaked documents). This additional funding will be earmarked for barn door closing and witch hunting.

The bill would empower the director of national intelligence to make improvements to the government's process for investigating people with security clearances, such as Snowden.

The phrase, "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind. An intelligence agency of this size and reach should have been prepared for this eventuality and maybe, just maybe, shouldn't have been so willing to outsource everything from system administration to the background checks themselves. Giving the NSA more money in order to help it guard against an eventuality like Snowden's massive disclosures is basically rewarding it for running a leaky ship.

The bad news is that the government doesn't know how to approach the "insider threat" issue. Any nuance is obliterated by a horrible combination of bureaucracy and paranoia, which results in the government suggesting that an employee's "dissatisfaction with US policies" or financial problems indicate he or she is a possible "insider threat."

According to the press release issued by the committee, the bill will also include some sort of protection for whistleblowers provided, of course, they go through official channels.

[Institutes] new statutory protections that protect the ability of legitimate whistleblowers to bring concerns directly to the attention of lawmakers, inspectors general and intelligence community leaders

That's the press release wording, so we'll have to wait until the text of the bill is made public before we'll be able to judge the merits of this claim. The administration has talked a strong game about transparency but has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. Requiring whistleblowers to go through official channels in order to be afforded any legal protections just makes it that much more difficult for any true whistleblowing to occur. Official channels are in place to discourage whistleblowing rather than accommodate it, no matter what assurances might be included in the legislation. Besides, any bill that aims at both rooting out "insider threats" (many of whom may just be whistleblowers) and protecting whistleblowers is at odds with itself.

The bill passed 13-2 out of committee. Even without a roll call of those votes, it's safe to assume the nays came from Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, which should be an indicator of the bill's indulgence of the NSA's desires and the presumably weak whistleblower protections that accompany it.

Filed Under: budget, funding, insider threats, nsa, surveillance, whistleblowers

Latest Snowden Leaks Detail The 'Black Budget' And How Much The Gov't Wastes On Useless Surveillance

from the i-could-use-me-a-black-budget-too dept

Barton Gellman and Greg Miller over at the Washington Post have the latest scoops from the Ed Snowden leaks, in which it appears they've been able to go through the details of the infamous "black budget," detailing the money that is spent on intelligence operations. Apparently, the total budget is around $52.6 billion this year (which actually is a bit lower than I would have expected, but is apparently twice what the budget was back in 2001). There's also another $23 billion spent on "intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military."

Not surprisingly, the Post agreed to leave most of the document unpublished and is careful not to reveal anything really damaging (i.e., sources and methods), but the results are still quite revealing. Of course, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is still angry, arguing that any info from the budget "could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods." Blah, blah, blah. Someone doesn't like being held accountable. Others point out that discussing the budget seems quite reasonable. The post quotes Lee Hamilton, the former chair of the 9/11 commission (and former chair of the House Intelligence Committee), who argues that having this info public is important to having an informed public debate on the surveillance state. That's the only way that the intelligence community can be held accountable.

And, actually, what the budget reveals is a rather stunning lack of accountability for the budget -- much of it going to the CIA. While many people had assumed that the CIA had been diminishing in power and authority within the intelligence community (especially in relation to the NSA), it turns out that its budget has been growing and growing, and is much more than the NSA's. Furthermore, the CIA has basically been transformed from an "intelligence" agency into a "paramilitary force."

And for all this funding, with so little accountability, it should come as no surprise to find out that much of this money appears to be wasted, and not particularly effective.

Throughout the document, U.S. spy agencies attempt to rate their efforts in tables akin to report cards, generally citing progress but often acknowledging that only a fraction of their questions could be answered — even on the community’s foremost priority, counter-terrorism.

In 2011, the budget assessment says intelligence agencies made at least “moderate progress” on 38 of their 50 top counterterrorism gaps, the term used to describe blind spots. Several concern Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, an enemy of Israel that has not attacked U.S. interests directly since the 1990s.

Other blank spots include questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear components when they are being transported, the capabilities of China’s next generation fighter aircraft, and how Russia’s government leaders are likely to respond “to potentially destabilizing events in Moscow, such as large protests and terrorist attacks.”

A chart outlining efforts to address key questions on biological and chemical weapons is particularly bleak. U.S. agencies set themselves annual goals of making progress in at least five categories of intelligence collection related to these weapons. In 2011, the agencies made headway on just two gaps; a year earlier the mark was zero.

So, we're spending all of this money (our money) on top secret operations, including spying on pretty much every American... and so far it's been almost entirely useless against the actual threats we face. Well, that's comforting. Oh, and if you wondered about the failure to connect the dots on the Boston Marathon bombings? It's because the intelligence community and all that money have no idea how to figure out those kinds of attacks.

The intelligence community seems particularly daunted by the emergence of “home grown” terrorists who plan attacks in the United States without direct support or instruction from abroad, a threat realized this year, after the budget was submitted, in twin bombings at the Boston Marathon.

The National Counterterrorism Center has convened dozens of analysts from other agencies in attempts to identify “indicators” that could help law enforcement understand the path from religious extremism to violence. The FBI was in line for funding to increase the number of agents surreptitiously tracking activity on jihadist Web sites.

But a year before the bombings in Boston the search for meaningful insight into the stages of radicalization was described as one of “the more challenging intelligence gaps.”

Also, the NSA is swimming in so much information that it asked for nearly $50 million to cope with the problem of having too much information. We've pointed out for years that the trick to finding the needles in haystacks isn't to build bigger haystacks, but that's long been the NSA's approach. However, those haystacks have become so big that the NSA asked for $48.6 million designated for "coping with information overload." Here's a simple, and cheaper, plan: don't collect so much irrelevant data. You can ship me half of the $48.6 million and keep the rest for something that's actually useful.

Also, there's this:

The agencies had budgeted for a major counterintelligence initiative in fiscal 2012, but most of those resources were diverted to an all-hands, emergency response to successive floods of classified data released by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

For this year, the budget promised a renewed “focus . . . on safeguarding classified networks” and a strict “review of high-risk, high-gain applicants and contractors” — the young, nontraditional computer coders with the skills the NSA needed

The budget, obviously, was submitted before Snowden absconded with it and gave it to the Post, so I would imagine that there have been some revisions to create yet another "all-hands, emergency response" to Snowden-like situations.

Filed Under: black budget, budget, cia, intelligence community, nsa, surveillance

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick Introduces Bill To Smack The NSA In The Wallet For Each Data Collection Violation

from the keyed-in-the-wrong-country-code?-that's-a-paddlin' dept

Another day and another legislative attempt to rein in the NSA. NJ Congressman Rush Holt led the way by announcing his plan to introduce a bill to repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments act back on July 11th. This was followed by Michigan Congressman Justin Amash's attempt to attach an NSA-defunding amendment to the Dept. of Defense appropriations bill making its way through the house.

A little later, Amash's amendment suffered a narrow defeat, thanks in part to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee withholding key information from other members of Congress. Rush Holt's bill is still a work in progress and Amash is planning legislation of his own that will set out to do what his failed amendment attempted. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of others in Congress have jumped in as well, which the ACLU has been conveniently tracking.

Now, another Congressman, Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, is introducing his own legislation.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) proposed legislation on Monday that would cut National Security Agency (NSA) funding if it violates new surveillance rules aimed at preventing broad data collection on millions of people.

"This bill tells the NSA that if they unlawfully spy on Americans again, Congress will take away their funding," Fitzpatrick said of his NSA Accountability Act. "The bill also makes it clear that the NSA can only track Americans where strong evidence suggests they are doing wrong."

The three-term Republican said his bill is a reaction to this month's press reports saying that the NSA overstepped its bounds thousands of times as it collected data on Americans from April 2011 to March 2012. An audit published by The Washington Post reported nearly 2,800 incidents of unauthorized data collection and storage.

Unlike the NSA's surveillance efforts (zing!), Fitzpatrick's bill is specifically targeted to problematic wording in the FISA Act, making a few changes to Section 501 subsection (b)(2)(a). Here's how his proposed changes would alter the current wording. [Additions in bold, strikethru hopefully self-explanatory.]

(A) a statement of specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant and material to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, such things being presumptively relevant to an authorized investigation if the applicant shows in the statement of the facts that they pertain to clandestine intelligence activities and pertain only to an individual that is the subject of such investigation; and

(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(ii) the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or

(iii) an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; and

(B) an enumeration of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under subsection (g) that are applicable to the retention and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any tangible things to be made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation based on the order requested in such application.

What the amendment would do is (hopefully) more narrowly define "relevant." As it stands now, the FISA Act allows for the collection of tangible things presumptively relevant, which as we've seen, tends to allow for a lot of ancillary data harvesting. Fitzpatrick removes that wording and replaces it with even more specifics -- "pertain only to an individual that is the subject of such investigation." In addition, he slices out subsections (i) through (iii), which further narrows down the acceptable data the NSA can pursue.

Whether or not these wording changes will prevent extra "hops" or more massive data hauls remains to be seen. But Fitzpatrick is waving a bit of stick in the form of budget cuts should the agency reach surpass its authority.

[T]he legislation holds that any violation of Section 501 would be met with a decision to withhold all unobligated funds to carry out that section of law until the end of the fiscal year.

This may also encourage more targeted data collections, if for no other reason than so much of the NSA's work is outsourced to private contractors. Government officials may be able to protect their own paychecks in case of self-inflicted budget cuts, but they're going to have a hard time finding companies to work with them if internal malfeasance starts threatening their paychecks.

It's tough to say whether these legislative attempts have a chance in hell at passing, but the odds have vastly improved over the past few weeks. There's a ton of internal Congressional wrangling still ahead before these bills go up for a vote, but at this point, it's highly doubtful the NSA and the administration protecting it will be able to sufficiently polish their reputations before these bills hit the floor. And no matter what happens, it's refreshing to see the NSA being targeted by irate representatives and citizens, rather than the other way around.

Filed Under: budget, laws, mike fitzpatrick, nsa, nsa surveillance, violations