My Letter to the MIAC Committee

Yes, it's long. Yes, it's detailed. Will this have any impact whatsoever on Missouri's attempts to establish legislative oversight over the Missouri Information and Analysis Center? I am still waiting on a response. If I get one, I will post it here.

26 June 2009
Representative Bob Dixon
Interim House Committee on State Intelligence Analysis Oversight
Missouri House of Representatives
201 W. Capitol Ave.
Room 315
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Representative Dixon:

I am writing your Committee from Maryland, not only out of concern that I may have been profiled as a person who voted for Ron Paul as President, but as one who believes that fusion centers like the Missouri Information and Analysis Center are a danger to the Constitutional rights that Americans hold most dear. Maryland is one of at least three other states that has considered legislation concerning fusion centers in the past two years. I would like to discuss legislation in Maryland, Virginia, and New Mexico--both as a way of cautioning you about the shortcomings and pitfalls of the legislation-- but also to point out the efforts of legislators in other states who have bravely worked to place limits on the workings of the fusion centers, using the Constitution as their guide.

In April, Maryland passed House Bill 311, the Freedom of Association and Assembly Act of 2009. This bill was offered in response to an ACLU report that peace and anti-death penalty activists had been the subject of surveillance by the Maryland State Police for a period of 14 months. The State Police used various covert techniques to collect data on the activists, then entered it into the State Police’s Case Explorer Database. This information was further disseminated into the federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Database (HIDTA)--one of the partner agencies of Maryland’s fusion center, the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center. Through freedom of information requests, the Maryland ACLU was able to discover that over fifty peaceful activists had been listed in the HIDTA database as potential terrorists. The ACLU also discovered that the Baltimore City Police was collecting information on these activists and sharing it directly with the National Security Agency.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, “Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress,” (pp. 13-14), most fusion centers use a part of the federal code (28 CFR part 23), which gives guidelines for “criminal intelligence systems operating policies.” 28 CFR part 23.20 specifically states that information about persons engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment can only be collected if the agency can establish “the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.“ This standard is surely based on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which allows warrants to be issued only “upon probable cause.”

These regulations were supposed to protect activists from unreasonable spying, but the Maryland State Police watched over them without regard to their Constitutional rights. The ACLU and Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin believed that legislation, not regulation, would allow the people and elected officials to properly monitor the activities of the State Police. The first bill introduced, MD HB 182, adopted much of the language of 28 CFR part 23 in an effort to codify the regulations into state law. This bill proposed the standard of “reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity” as the only reason for investigating activists otherwise engaged in lawful First Amendment activities--and such investigation could not occur unless a prior written finding was submitted first. HB 182--again, basing its language on the Code of Federal Regulations--would have also required written authorization for each act of transmission of data to other agencies, would have required written proof of the accuracy of the data, and would not have permitted the information to be “disseminated to a nonlaw enforcement agency.” But the Maryland House Judiciary Committee did not recommend this bill for full consideration of the House of Delegates…indeed, according to the Maryland ACLU, the Maryland State Police vigorously opposed the bill, which simply asked for protections that they should already have been following under the Code of Federal Regulations.

The bill which eventually passed, MD HB 311, still requires that a police chief submit written authorization showing “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” before covert investigation can begin; information collected is required to be “accurate,” though without written justification; and “membership…in a group or organization engaged in lawful First Amendment activities does not alone establish reasonable…suspicion of criminal activity.” What this bill does not address is how information might be shared in criminal intelligence databases such as the Maryland Case Explorer Database or the HIDTA database; the Maryland State Police have until 2010 to develop regulations to address these concerns. So the larger question of what to do with these databases is given over again to the State Police, and the question of how the information on these activists might have been passed on to the Maryland fusion center remains unaddressed by this legislation. I wrote the Maryland ACLU with these concerns, and they agree with my interpretation. Although the Maryland Freedom of Association and Protection Act of 2009 might sound good to the average voter, it does in fact allow the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center to operate without significant oversight by the Maryland legislature and certainly not by the citizens of Maryland.

One important protection in Maryland HB 311 that I have not yet mentioned is that persons who believe they may have been wrongfully watched may request information from law enforcement under the Maryland Public Information Act. However, in March, 2008, Virginia passed legislation which specifically exempted materials and databases of the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act--in defiance of Virginia’s Open Government Law. Virginia House Bill 1007 left citizens and lawmakers with no means of judging whether the Virginia fusion center might be following Constitutional guidelines in its everyday operations. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) also suspected that the federal government may have made passage of this law a requirement for its funding of the Virginia fusion center; they filed Virginia Freedom of Information Act Requests to the Virginia State Department of Police and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for documents which might have shown this federal involvement, but without success. EPIC asked for a year to study this involvement in February, 2008...but the legislation passed in April of the same year. It is still not completely known what influence the federal government may have had over this piece of state legislation; the Constitutional implications of this are, to say the least, very disturbing.

New Mexico State Representative Mo Maestas, along with the New Mexico ACLU, also introduced a bill which aimed to protect persons engaged in political activity from unreasonable investigation. This bill proposed unusually strong protections, including the right of persons to submit complaints to the State Attorney General and the right of a person to “bring a civil action against a law enforcement agency that has collected, maintained or shared information about the person in violation” of the bill. Significantly, New Mexico House Bill 431 said that the definition of “law enforcement agency…includes a law enforcement agency of the federal government or of any other state or political subdivision of a state…”. This clearly would cover the activities of a fusion center, which typically includes information shared from databases of federal, state, and local agencies.

But this bill was not recommended for further consideration. The Fiscal Impact Report, issued on January 31, 2009, shows that the Administrative Office of the District Attorneys and the Public Defender Department of New Mexico did not agree that this was a good piece of legislation. According to the Public Defender Department, “enactment of this bill may alleviate potential problems implicating the First Amendment’s right of association. The bill would prohibit criminal investigations and the compilation of the names of individuals and groups based solely upon political, social or religious activities and beliefs…”. Although Maryland’s HB 311 offered virtually the same protection, the District Attorneys of the State of New Mexico declared that “this legislation would completely interfere with and gut good investigative practices.” Further, the District Attorneys assert that this legislation would “render useless the costly statewide/nationwide deconfliction and intelligence systems that have been in place…”--this, I am sure, is a reference to the New Mexico fusion center. The report concludes: “The collection, maintenance and sharing of such information (religious, social views and actions) is of heightened concern due to post 9/11 intelligence concerns.” Clearly, the District Attorneys are not comfortable with the concept of protecting the First Amendment rights of its citizens, nor do they wish to affect the workings of the New Mexico fusion center, the All Source Information Center.

There is no one lesson that can be drawn from the stories of these three pieces of legislation, but there are a few key themes that can be discerned. Clearly the proposed protections of the Maryland and New Mexico legislation, especially with regard to information gathering about activists and the dissemination of data to other law enforcement, were perceived as a threat to the investigative abilities of law enforcement and of district attorneys. How can legislation be designed that properly honors both the First Amendment rights of peaceful dissenters and allows law enforcement effective use of investigative tools? As I am not an attorney or a legislator, I am not sure if there is room for compromise here, but these competing interests surely bear consideration.

Another theme is that of the role of federalism, which perhaps was the factor in the adoption of Virginia House Bill 1007. It is concerning that the federal government may have forced passage of this legislation by making it the condition of the funding for the Virginia fusion center.
Finally, the ACLU and the Congressional Research Service have pointed out the ambiguities created by the role of the federal government in the running of the fusion centers. Although the centers are run by states, not the federal government, their partner agencies include federal, state, and local governments. They are regulated by federal regulations such as 28 CFR 23 and the Privacy Act of 1974, but theoretically also by the laws of the states in which they operate. These centers concern themselves with the investigation of terrorism, which is largely a federal crime. In my view, any legislation which seeks to oversee the operation of the fusion centers should also examine the proper role of the federal government and its laws over centers which perhaps should be considered to be state agencies.

These centers are run largely without state or federal oversight. Because of their secrecy, it is difficult to tell whether they operate in ways consistent with the Constitution, and whether they give proper consideration to the laws of their host states.

I have not chosen to focus on the specific profiling of rightwing dissenters which was put forth in the MIAC’s report, “The Modern Militia Movement.” Even if MIAC chooses to redact names given to certain categories of dissenters, it does not make much difference if MIAC or any other fusion center can still collect and disseminate information in defiance of Constitutional protections.

I hope you will keep my views in mind, both as you conduct these interim committee hearings this summer and as you pursue Missouri House Bill 1138, which seeks to establish an oversight committee within the Missouri Information Analysis Center. I wish you boldness in facing whatever challenges you may encounter. I believe that any attempt to balance security and freedom should come down on the side of freedom. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Regards,
　

References:

“ACLU of Maryland Lawsuit Uncovers Maryland State Police Spying Against Peace and Anti-Death Penalty Groups”
http://www.aclu.org/police/spying/36025prs20080717.html

ACLU’s Maryland Public Information Act Request
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press%202006/MPIA_Request_Letter.PDF

Congressional Research Service, “Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34070.pdf

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 23: Criminal Intelligence Operating Policies
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b9ee2d01721dd0b02a12a9e91b40ab31&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title28/28cfr23_main_02.tpl

“Cindy Boersma: ACLU: Rein in police spying legislation--not regulation--will ensure statewide, uniform rules”
http://www.gazette.net/stories/10092008/policol171528_32478.shtml

Maryland House Bill 182 (2009 Session)
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0182f.pdf

Fiscal and Policy Note, Maryland House Bill 182, p.6, “Hearing in Judicial Proceedings Committee”
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0002/hb0182.pdf

Maryland House Bill 311 (2009 Session)
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0311e.pdf

Virginia House Bill 1007 (2008 Session)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+HB1007

“EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police: Fusion Center Secrecy Bill”
http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/
　
EPIC FOIA Request, Virginia State Police
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/VA_FOIA021208.pdf

EPIC Letter to Virginia State Senate: “Re: HB 1007: Open Government and the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center”
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/Letter_to_Senate_02_25_08.pdf

New Mexico House Bill 431 (First Session, 2009)
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/09%20Regular/bills/house/HB0431.pdf

Fiscal Impact Report, New Mexico House Bill 431
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/firs/HB0431.pdf

New Mexico Independent, “Civil Liberties Advocates Want Law to Guard Against Domestic Spying”
http://newmexicoindependent.com/14871/civil-liberties-advocates-want-law-to-guard-against-domestic-spying

Update on Missouri House Committee on MIAC

As some of you may already know, MO Rep. Bob Dixon is chairing an interim committee this summer which is investigating the MIAC report, “The Modern Militia Movement.” This committee has already had one hearing and, according to Rep. Dixon, will have 3 to 4 more hearings this summer.

I called to ask if letters would be accepted as part of the committee’s record, and the answer to that is yes. If you would like to also correspond with the committee, here is the contact info:

Rep. Bob Dixon, Chair
Interim House Committee on State Intelligence Analysis Oversight
Missouri House of Representatives
201 W. Capitol Ave.
Rm. 315
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Email:
Bob.Dixon@house.mo.gov

Many thanks to Rep. Dixon, who actually answered the telephone himself!

The next post will be the text of the letter I sent to the MIAC Committee.

　

Fusion Centers--A Choice Between Terrorism or Tyranny?

Recently CNN reported that the Director for Development for Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, Steve Bierfeldt, was detained and questioned at an airport in Missouri concerning a large amount of cash he was carrying--despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to carry cash on an airplane. Suspicious behavior? Possibly a guy smuggling drugs? Bierfeldt had nothing to hide--he had gotten the money by selling Ron Paul T-shirts and posters--so why did he not cooperate? There is a definite answer, one which CNN does not give in its report.

The same week Bierfeldt was at a liberty rally in St. Louis, a curious document produced by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was leaked to the press. Called "The Modern Militia Movement," this report read like a field guide to identify potential terrorists. Pages of illustrations identify the kind of bumper stickers and flags the police should watch out for. Among them? The yellow Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Bumper stickers for third party presidential candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Bumper stickers for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Maybe Bierfeldt did have something to hide, after all. And maybe the TSA was using a fusion center report to profile Steve Bierfeldt.


Media on the right, now on the wrong side of law enforcement, were outraged. The three presidential candidates insisted on and received an apology on behalf of the people who voted for them. But this focus does not strike at the heart of the threat fusion centers pose to our civil liberties.


Fusion centers were established as an answer to the 9-11 Report. The terrorists were able to operate, it was asserted, because law enforcement on many levels simply lacked the means to communicate effectively with each other. Fusion centers became a means of sharing information among federal, state, and local law enforcement.

Typical federal partners of the fusion centers are the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Other participating agencies might be military--such as the Army or the Coast Guard--and even be non law-enforcement agencies, such as a university. The ACLU has pointed out that military participation may be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from serving in domestic law enforcement roles. Some fusion centers even engage in data mining; for example, using information from credit reporting agencies to determine who is a potential terrorist. Gathering information from private corporations raises serious questions about who might also have access to information and if it will be used in a secure way.

Finally, because these centers share information from federal, state, and local agencies, it is unclear what laws or oversight apply to these centers. According to a Congressional Research Service report on fusion centers, a part of the federal code (28 CFR part 23) applies to the way fusion centers can collect and then share data. However, the workings of fusion centers are by their very nature secret, and it is difficult for a citizen or lawmaker to determine if in fact these regulations are being followed.

This same part of the Federal Code makes it clear that persons engaged in political or religious activity cannot be monitored by law enforcement unless there is "reasonable cause" that they may be involved in criminal activity. Yet in one state, Maryland, this standard was ignored by the State Police and peace and anti-death penalty activists were covertly monitored. The information was given to one of the Maryland fusion center's partners, the federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area database. The ACLU discovered over fifty activists had been listed as potential terrorists. Worse yet, they also discovered that the Baltimore City Police had been monitoring these activists and sharing the information directly with the National Security Agency.


The MIAC report gives us a new level of concern with fusion centers. The idea of profiling entire groups of dissidents, then giving the information to be shared with fusion centers across the country, is indeed chilling. Will we all be taking our flags down and peeling bumper stickers off our cars, afraid of being labeled as terrorists? Will we stop attending political meetings, protests, or our churches because we fear government harassment?


The Missouri Information and Analysis Center eventually agreed to rescind the entire report, but others have taken their place. DHS has released at least two reports profiling rightwing extremists (and, to be fair, has also released at least one report profiling leftwing dissidents). It is unlikely that DHS will stop this practice of profiling persons according to their political beliefs, given the von Brunn shooting at the United States Holocaust Museum and the shooting of an abortion doctor. And once the information from these reports are fed into these vast, secretive government databases, it will be difficult to tell whether people like Steve Bierfeldt was questioned by TSA just because he had a lot of cash...or because of his political beliefs.

Even in a world endangered by terrorism, is it worth the cost of our freedoms of speech and assembly to achieve security?

Sources:

CNN Report on Steve Bierfeldt
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/index.html

MIAC Report, "The Modern Militia Movement"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

ACLU: "What's Wrong with Fusion Centers"
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/32966pub20071205.html

Congressional Research Service, "Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34070.pdf

ACLU of Maryland Lawsuit Uncovers Maryland State Police Spying
http://www.aclu.org/police/spying/36025prs20080717.html

DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
http://api.ning.com/files/UNNlkOVukw8cXztJc4bDEq2ztrm9owekwvHofmLwYgxLlpwX8*h1av8amHehbYkmt3Qvxny16Gh1ob8gFYeRrw2HVq-joU7Y/hsarightwingextremism0904071.pdf

A Tale of Two Bloggers: Nightjack and RockyRaccoonMD

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

This is the tale of two bloggers, and their eventual fates had nothing to do with--or, perhaps, everything to do with--their online talents.

NightJack was a Lancashire detective who brought real life advice ("If the police arrive to lock you up, say nothing...All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in.") and information on real life cases, written in gritty yet elegant prose. Eventually, NightJack gained thousands of readers and was awarded the Orwell Prize, a prestigious prize for political writing.

RockyRaccoonMD--and his Internet companions Suze, CorsicaRiver, chatdusoleil, and "Born &amp Raised Here"--were commenters on a Queen Anne's County, MD, newspaper site run by Independent Newspapers, Inc. These bloggers decided to post attacks on a local businessman and developer, Zebulon Brodie, who sold his pre-Civil war house to another developer...and the house burned down.

What these bloggers have in common is that someone tried to unmask them. The angry recipients of their criticism attempted to silence them, but only in one case did they succeed.

Brodie's attackers were not especially articulate, insightful, or even grammatical. The way they leap to unfounded conclusions and give "more information" about the house (surely the result of a cursory Google search) is almost comical:

CorsicaRiver: I think there must be a special circle in Hell
reserved for a greedy selfish developer who deliberately burns
down a beautiful pre-Civil War house, after cutting down all the
100-year-old cypress trees around it. A really hot circle of Hell,

where they do nasty things to you with nail guns and hot asphalt.
What I’m referring to is not in Centreville, but nearby in Church
Hill . . . . The white Greek Revival house facing 213 that Zeb
Brodie sold 3 months ago for $1.85 mil to developers, who
deliberately torched it this past weekend. As of this morning,
they were bulldozing the charred remnants. There goes another
one of our County’s historic landmarks, a sight that used to lift
my spirits every time I past it on 213.
Shame on you Mr. Brodie!

Born & Raised Here: Oh my God, they burned the place
down? I can’t believe it!!!!!! I heard Bill Sharp bought it from
Brodie, don’t know if that’s true or not. Has anyone else heard
the same thing?

CorsicaRiver: Yes, they burned it down . . . and shame on Bill
Sharp as well as Mr. Brodie!

I just found out some more information about the house. It was
known as the Charles Cahall Farm and apparently dated back to
the 1850s. In his 1980 historical sites survey, Orlando Ridout
of the Maryland Historic Trust called it “one of the most
carefully, preserved farmhouses in the country,” “remarkable,”
and “virtually untouched.” There were also a well-preserved
meat house, windmill, and granary.

* * *
SecretAgentMan: Bastards!

* * *
chatdusoleil: Has there been a news story on the fire this
weekend? Or an investigation?

Not to be outdone, others join the attack. Brodie also owns the Dunkin Donuts and the local bloggers are not happy customers:

RockyRaccoonMD wrote: I wouldn’t go to that
Dunkin’ Donuts . . . anyway . . . have you taken a
close look at it lately? One . . . most dirty and
unsanitary-looking food-service places I . . . seen.
Just an FYI, you can complete a customer satisfaction report on
the Dunkin’ Donuts website. . . . make a difference, but it’s a
start. Perhaps the corporate folks will insist on a clean-up effort
. . . we can all go back some day

Suze: Posted: Mon Mar 20th, 2006 05:13pm
Corsica – I haven’t seen the inside of a DD in a while, but have
you seen the outside? I drove th . . . through not long ago and
was completely and utterly SHOCKED at the amount of trash
that is . . . and sides of that building. It’s apparent no one is
cleaning the outside oft he building and the . . . wafting into the
river that runs right alongside. (
If they don’t keep the outside clean then.... hmm... makes you
wonder.....

CorsicaRiver: Posted: Mon Mar 20th, 2006 04:52 pm

RockyRaccoonMD wrote:
Remember Mr. Brodie owns Dunkin’ Donuts in
town. He . . . the corner of the shop every
morning. I think I will mak . . . trip there this
week and let him know what I think and . . . foot
into that business, or any others that he owns (whi
. . . includes Subway), ever again. I’m sure it will
not m . . . much of a difference but...

I wouldn’t go to that Dunkin’ Donuts of Brodie’s anyway . . .
taken a close look at it lately? One of the most dirty and . . .
looking food-service places I have seen...I bought coffee . . .
couple of times but quickly lost my appetite....

(Independent Newspapers Inc. v. Zebulon J. Brodie, No. 63, September Term 2008; http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-02-27-Maryland%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20Decision%20in%20Independent%20Newspapers,%20Inc.%20v.%20Brodie.pdf pp. 20-21).

There's more, but you've had enough of a whiff of this gang. Be sure to notice that CorsicaRiver reposted RockyRaccoonMD's comment. That's important later.

Zeb Brodie found out about these posts and demanded Independent Newspapers, Inc. remove the posts, which they did. A year elapsed--surely a seethingly angry year--and he decided to sue Independent Newspapers, Inc. for defamation in Queen Anne's County, MD. His attorneys also issued a subpoena to reveal the identities of the anomymous posters, claiming that First Amendment rights do not apply in cases of defamation.

This case--the first of its kind in Maryland--eventually was heard by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in late 2008. The court recognized a right to anonymous speech under the First Amendment, but outlined for the first time what standards would be used in deciding under what circumstances the identity of an unknown blogger could be revealed. Under these new set of rules, Brodie's case did not meet the standard to have the bloggers' identities revealed. For example, Brodie's attorneys should have made efforts to contact the bloggers to allow them to serve opposition to the subpoena; Brodie should have included transcripts of all the statements made by the bloggers; Brodie's complaint should have included evidence that he had an actionable lawsuit with a reasonable chance of winning. The court went on to show that most of the language used by the bloggers was subjective and at times downright rhetorical... not the basis for a lawsuit of defamation, where statements would need to be definitively disproved. RockyRaccoonMD and Suze write about the "unsanitary" conditions and the trash "wafting" down the river. How does one quantify or prove these statements? Brodie, by the time his case made it to the highest court, had ample opportunity to prove these statements incorrect. And the most basic error made by his attorneys? Brodie had only one year to bring a lawsuit of this nature anyway.

Why have such a list of standards for unmasking anonymous posters, you say? The Maryland Court of Appeals was concerned that some plaintiffs bring suit solely for the purpose of finding out who their attackers are--not, in their opinion, a good enough reason to breach the otherwise watertight hull of the First Amendment battleship.

It's really hard not to see the attack on NightJack as exactly that--a blatant attempt to unmask an Internet blogger. I wish I had eloquent passages to share, but, alas, Jack Night's blog is no longer on the Internet. I could only find an article in the Independent with a few passages:

"In the blog he has been able to give forthright views on a number of policing and political subjects without fear of reprisal from his paymasters. Police Community Support Officers, he says, are: "deployed into inevitable confrontations that they [are] neither equipped or minded to deal with." Teenage yobs, he writes: "Just want to get high, shag your 14-year-old daughter until she is pregnant, and nick your stuff." And lax jail sentences, mean it is: "Entirely possible to live a career of criminal life without facing any serious consequences."

"He also treats readers to anecdotes from cases he is working on, such as the rapist he caught after the man left evidence on his mobile phone: "Now me, if I had a video of me molesting a 14-year-old on my phone, If I had used a well-positioned door mirror to video my grinning self on the job...I would delete it. Thank you Bilal you stupid arrogant child rapist." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/online-and-under-cover-gritty-and-addictive-nightjack-blog-gives-insiders-view-of-modernday-policing-1688483.html)

I've tried in vain to find the actual blog. It's gone, even from the Orwell Prize site, which says "to be associated with [Orwell's] name, is not just an honour, but a call to action." All the links lead to the same dead place on the Internet, thanks to the misguided action of the London Times.

By the standard of the free market of ideas, Jack Night's blog was a runaway success. At its height, according to the Times, NightJack attracted half a million readers, drawn by his criticism of police officials and politicians, and undoubtedly by his gritty descriptions of the cases themselves. This aroused enough curiosity in a Times reporter to discover the identity of NightJack...and eventually, the reporter was able to uncover his identity, using mostly clues from the Internet. NightJack's case eventually was heard by the UK's High Court, who ruled that "blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity," and that even if this were not the case, Mr. Justice Eady would have ruled against him anyway for "public interest grounds," saying that "I do not accept that it is part of the court’s function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors.”

(http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece)

Oh yes, doesn't this miss the point? NightJack is concerned that modern policing in the UK uses gestapo-like methods and he wants to write about it. Do you think that he is free to do that with his real name, as it is in the public's "interest" for police officers to only follow regulations and never openly criticize the inner workings of their police departments? Perhaps the Times reporter simply wanted notoriety for finding NightJack's identity, but the ruling of the High Court did in fact achieve the ultimate end of all censorship, which is to suppress and to silence dissent. In this, the High Court recalls the days of the Star Chamber, a place where dissenters were silenced and imprisoned.

Sometimes it takes only the most extreme of speech to effect change. To the British government of George III's time, our Founding Fathers were nothing more than a bunch of radical criminals who deserved to be hunted down and hung. Many of the names we revere today--Franklin, Jefferson, Paine--were not named at all on their most revolutionary writings. Indeed, Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense, his most effective call to action, was published anonymously. But Paine's later writings were not anonymous--and he was imprisoned both in England and in France for the sins of speaking out.

Only an insider could point out the failings of the UK police state, and he has been unmasked and suppressed--a truly Orwellian end for the winner of the Orwell prize.

What remains to be seen is the eventual impact of these court rulings. Some in the UK already decry the NightJack ruling as a serious blow to free expression on the Internet. As for Brodie, who was sent packing from the Maryland Court of Appeals, he did not succeed only because he was not adequately prepared. The Court's decision to write extensive guidelines for the unmasking of those who write libellous or otherwise undesirable speech will only make it easier for the prepared to pierce the veil of anonymity. Is this suppression of speech, or merely a slowing of it, as the mind succumbs to the chill of fear?

A Postscript:

I wanted to tell you about the significance of Corsica River, who reposted RockyRaccoonMD's comment. Corsica River, it turns out, was decided not to have defamed Brodie because she reposted defamatory information originally written by someone else. This is because of the protections of the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC Section 230, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So if you've been running around the Internet posting the words of your favorite radical blogger or even an extra-naughty Founding Father, rest easy.

Sources:

Subpoena, Brodie v. Independent Newspapers, Inc.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brodie-v-independent-newspapers-inc-subpoena

Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Zebulon J. Brodie, No. 63, September Term, 2008 (MD Court of Appeals)

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-02-27-Maryland%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20Decision%20in%20Independent%20Newspapers,%20Inc.%20v.%20Brodie.pdf

Ruling on NightJack Author...kills Internet Anonymity

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece

Online and under cover: Gritty and addictive NightJack blog gives insider's view of modern-day policing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/online-and-under-cover-gritty-and-addictive-nightjack-blog-gives-insiders-view-of-modernday-policing-1688483.html

The Orwell Prize Site

http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?type=blog

Swedish Pirate Party Gains Seat in EU Parliament

This was a new one for me...Swedes want an Internet free of intrusive copyright laws, patents, and government interference. And it's the third biggest party in the country!

Sweden's Pirate Party sets sail for Europe
Young voters gave a seat in EU parliament to new party that campaigned to loosen copyright laws

By Tom Sullivan Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the June 8, 2009 edition

Stockholm - It started as a protest movement over shutting down a website accused of distributing pirated music.

Today, it has a place in the European Parliament.
Buoyed by a majority of young people and first-time voters in Sweden, the Pirate Party won more than 7 percent of the vote, ensuring at least one seat at the European Union Parliament in Brussels.
The Pirate Party rose to prominence earlier this year by campaigning for the music and movie file-sharing website Pirate Bay.
In April, the website's founders were convicted of copyright violations and given a one-year jail sentence as well as a $3.6 million fine.
But in the wake of that ruling, the site continued to operate and the party tripled its membership base, becoming the third largest in the country.
There is more, however, to Monday's victory than a protest vote and illegal file sharing.
The Pirate Party won the support of the majority of Swedes under the age of 30, a group which traditionally fails to participate in European elections. According to polls, a quarter of their voters have little trust in politicians. Almost a fifth are potential supporters of the extreme right-wing Sweden Democrats, who – as a direct result of the Pirate Party – failed to garner enough support to win a seat.
While the Pirate Bay court case boosted the party's profile, the political climate was already changing in its favor.
"A new conflict over the Internet emerged last year when the government brought in the FRA law, allowing widespread monitoring of telephone and internet communications for national security reasons," says polling analyst Niklas Kaellebring. "Then we had the IPRED (Intellectual Property EU Directive) law from the EU against downloading of copyrighted material earlier this year."

Read more at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0608/p06s08-woeu.html

National Security Letters...finally ungagged?

National Security Letters (NSLs) are the very dirty little secret of the Patriot Act. These letters enable the FBI to obtain information--for example, from your local library or your Internet Service Provider--without the need for a subpoena. And even worse, if you are the lucky recipient of such a letter, you are GAGGED--yes, silenced--from even revealing that you have been asked for the information requested. Here's a factsheet about them from the ACLU:



http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html



The kind of information asked for? It could be your library borrowing records. It could be a list of the websites you've visited. It could even be who I really am, hiding behind that fancy Latin blogname.



We gotta fix this, you say. There are a few souls in the Congress would love to do just that. HR 1800, "The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2009" (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111oyvq8P:e1281:) would only allow NSLs to be issued if there are "specific and articulable facts" that justify them, and would not allow these letters to be issued "in connection with an investigation of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." This sounds like a good protection...indeed, it is a great improvement over what is now allowed under the Patriot Act.



The gag is not removed, however, but at least limited to 30 days under most circumstances, though the FBI may request a gag for up to 180 days.



This is a good bill to follow. Make sure your representative knows about it and ask him or her to cosponsor. So far there are 19 cosponsors:




Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 3/30/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/30/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/30/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 3/30/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/30/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 3/30/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 3/30/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 3/30/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/30/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/30/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/30/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 3/30/2009
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/30/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/23/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 3/30/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 3/30/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/30/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/2/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/30/2009

Welcome to the Grassroots of the New Revolution!

It is time to reassert our rights against a government grown too oppressive and too large, against a government who has forgotten its Constitution.

I use the Committees of Correspondence in the American Revolution as my model. Composed of both prominent Colonists and ordinary citizens, these Committees were the means of organized opposition against Great Britain. They communicated by handwritten correspondence sent by horseback or by ship. These letters were used both as a means to educate about vital issues such as the Stamp Act, but also to rouse to action. Perhaps the most famous action of a Committee of Correspondence was the Boston Tea Party, led by Samuel Adams.

These blog entries are much like those early letters, culled and written by me and presented to you. Use them firstly for your education. One day we may all be called to action. Our civil liberties are under siege.

A word about civil liberties...

Civil liberties are those that protect the individual from the government. Some organizations, such as the ACLU, mostly concern themselves with the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion; rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right to a fair trial. I further define a civil liberty to be any liberty guaranteed by the first ten amendments of the Constitution. When was the last time you saw a civil libertarian argue for the Second Amendment?

A word about privacy...

Many of us have heard of the Privacy Act of 1974. Seen in its broadest sense, the Privacy Act guarantees the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." In a world connected by the Internet, it is increasingly difficult for us to be secure in our communications and in our homes.

About Me:

I am not an attorney! Bring away education but no legal advice from this blog. Like Jefferson, I believe that any intelligent person can read the Constitution, understand it, and apply it to everyday situations. Knowledge is power; knowledge can make us safe; knowledge can also be dangerous. This is why I call myself Periculosa, the perilous.

.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. ("I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude"). --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.