|
A Global Infrastructure for Mass Surveillance
Part 2 -
Part 1 Here
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able
to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions
and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the
government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.
--H. L. Mencken
Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come
from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the
history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the
limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. --Woodrow
Wilson
By Nolan K. Anderson
03/02/06 "ICH"
-- --
In today's world we have been dumbed down through our government
educational system, television and Hollywood's interpretation of
history and current events to the point where no one seems to have
the faintest inclination to study and examine, with a critical eye,
what our political parties fob of on us for the truth. How many in
the Republican Party view their party as dishonest, insane, and/or
intolerable? When Clinton was in power, how many Democrats were able
to see that selling our defense secrets to the Chinese for campaign
contributions was dishonest, insane AND intolerable? We apparently
assume that anything said by our government - especially the
President - is true and needs no examination or comment. For the
most part, even a cursory examination of anything a politician says
can be found to be false and is presented for his/her own reason(s).
The myths surrounding our dealings with the government's avowed
purpose of "protecting" us needs more objective scrutiny than almost
any other scam politicians have to inflict upon us. "Scam" is a
harsh word, but as one examines the true nature of the programs for
mass surveillance of global populations it will be seen that "scam"
is a word far too benign to truly describe the programs presently
underway. The programs, under the sponsorship and goading of the US
intelligence community, are truly terrifying in scope and content.
The insidious part of this "racket" is that it continues to grow
irrespective of which party is in power. Each administration hands
its "rogue baton" to its successor that in turn builds upon the
foundation being handed it. After all, what politician has ever been
guilty of reducing the size and scope of government? In essence,
this succession is exemplified by Clinton's domestic and global
surveillance system being handed to Bush who was "honor" (sic) bound
to embellish whatever Clinton had in place. Bush's embellishments
have been Orwellian in scope and stature - especially after 9/11.
For each embellishment that has been unearthed, there has had to be
a myth created to soothe the uneasy electorate. The following
popular myths will be examined to see what is behind the facade of
deceit for each mass surveillance program presently under
development.
Myth No. 1: We are merely being asked to sacrifice some of our
privacy and convenience for greater security:
Why is this a myth? Because like most myths, it doesn't examine any
of the ramifications that would allow the citizen to analyze the
pros and con's in order to arrive at a rational conclusion. Like
most myths this one sounds so good that anyone wanting to argue the
premise must be a "terrorist in drag".
In the first place, we aren't being "asked" anything. The scheme
toward global surveillance is being pursued with the utmost stealth
by all the government entities participating in the programs.
Secondly, "some" is not in the development lexicon. We are talking
here of the sacrifice of TOTAL individual privacy. This is a program
development necessity because the programs are being built with an
objective of "risk assessment". Risk assessment for the most part is
concerned with the analysis of huge blocks of data to determine
trends or patterns. Most of the analysis is done without human
interface so it is up to computers to determine the trends. Fourth,
this data sharing is done without regard to which government or
governmental agency sees it or uses it. This means that while a
citizen may be living within the laws of a particular country, his
shared data can put him in grave danger under the laws of some other
country that may be examining his "dossier".
Myth No. 2: These initiatives facilitate travel:
Facilitating travel is the least of "Big Brother's" objectives.
"Brother" is more interested in creating a record of passengers'
private information. Passenger information is being stored for data
mining purposes to identify risk patterns.
"There are no legal avenues of redress to challenge one's risk
"score". Those who are pulled over as moderate or "unknown" risks
will miss flights. Those who are flagged as high risk may be
"rendered" by the United States and other countries without any kind
of due process, to third countries where they may face torture,
arbitrary detention and even death". [1]
Myth No.3: If one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to worry
about.
Again we have a "flag and apple pie" myth created by the bureaucracy
to disguise the 800-pound gorilla watching television in the living
room. The key inaccuracy here is in not asking "nothing to hide from
WHOM"? The problem is that the data that is stored and data-mined is
shared with any and all agencies with which the US cooperates in
this burgeoning global surveillance network. Therefore, one can
never be sure who will be looking at and analyzing one's particular
personal data. As previously stated, if a computer decides your data
"score" isn't correct, there is no appeal to the totally impersonal
system under which your score was calculated because the data hasn't
been touched by human hands. Thus, the only variable for a security
score unsatisfactory to some computer will be: is the victim to be
tortured and killed in the area where his "score" was found to be
unsatisfactory, or will one be rendered to some other country for
"special handling"?
Myth No. 4: The technology being used is objective and reliable:
"First, the factual base on which the technology rests in
unreliable. The 'best information available' on which data mining or
risk-scoring technology depend is often inaccurate, lacking context,
dated or incomplete. It might even be 'dirty' information -
extracted by torture, or offered by an informant who is vulnerable
or is acting in bad faith.
None of the data mining programs contains a mechanism by which
individuals can correct . . . or object to the information that is
being used against them, or even know what it is. Indeed, these
systems are uninterested in this kind of precision. They would be
bogged down if they were held to the ordinary standards of access,
accuracy and accountability. Operating on a precautionary principle,
they are not really concerned with the truth about individuals: they
are meant to cut a broad swath". [2]
Myth No. 5: Terrorist watch lists are a reliable product of
international intelligence cooperation and consensus.
Again, how can "mere" citizens quarrel with such a premise? Who
would think their government is operating a flawed system that isn't
designed for his/her protection? The reality is that there is no
central, planned criteria for determining whose name goes on the
list(s) or why. Various governments and intelligence entities
establish their own criteria for establishing the lists.
"Equally troubling is the fact that "there is no due process
afforded individuals or groups to allow them to challenge the
inclusion of their names on a list. And, once the "terrorist" label
is fastened to them, actions are taken against them without normal
legal protections being afforded (protections such as presumption of
innocence the right to know the evidence and allegations against one
and to respond, the right to remain silent, and habeas corpus). This
is the essence of the risk assessment model: it treats as
intolerable risks the very legal protections that are fundamental to
free and democratic societies". [3]
Myth No. 6: If one is mistakenly caught up in the global mass
surveillance net, one's government can protect one:
The fact is that once a citizen of any country is caught in this
international surveillance web, there is little his government can
do to protect him.
Myth No. 7: Governments want to implement these systems in protect
their citizens from terrorists.
Who would be so foolish as to argue with such an obvious, lofty
goal? Answer, anyone who is even remotely aware of the manner is
which the mass surveillance systems operate. The agreements between
governments are many times irresponsible and do not have adequate
controls concerning the sharing of information.
There is also the economic factor involved. Some countries, to gain
information on foreign citizens, freely use various forms of
economic coercion. For example, the United States has the lever of
withholding landing rights to force airlines to hand over passenger
information. Threatened withholding of foreign aid by the US and the
EU is also used as a bludgeon to force countries to acquiesce on
sharing personal information on their citizens.
Myth No. 8: Western Democracies are defending democracy and human
rights around the world.
Do the following examples of "justice" sound as though Western
Democracies are interested in defending human rights?
1. The UK allows the CIA to operate one of its extraterritorial
detention centers on the British island of Diego Garcia.
2. Sweden has allowed US, UK and German agencies to question
suspects held in Sweden and have cooperated in the rendition of
asylum applicants from Sweden to Egypt for torture and imprisonment.
3. In Italy, US intelligence agents kidnapped an Islamic militant
and sent him to Egypt where he was tortured.
4. A German is alleged to have been seized by Macedonian police, hel
d for weeks incommunicado, striped and beaten, flown to a jail in
Afghanistan controlled by US agents where he was held and tortured
for five months before being dumped in Albania.
5. The governments of Austria, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, and
the UK have themselves sought to deport terrorist suspects to
countries where torture is used.
Myth No. 9: These initiatives make us safer:
Another illusion from the masters of "illusion". The oceans of data
mined by the various governments using faulty logic and conceived
biases, yields outrageous number of errors. For the statistically
large number of people misidentified, the consequences can be dire.
What is required is good information about specific threats, not
crude racial profiling and useless information on the nearly 100
percent of the population that poses no threat whatsoever. [4]
Myth No. 10: Guaranteeing security is the paramount responsibility
of governments.
If this myth is true, why did 9/11 happen? The point here is that
the various US intelligence agencies DID receive generalized
warnings from several sources that an attack on the US using
civilian airplanes was being planned, but no increased security
measures were taken to safeguard the country. "Three years after the
attack, 120,000 hours of recorded telephone calls had yet to be
translated by the FBI". So how then could the oceans of data that
are now being made available for computer analysis have averted an
attack? The United States security apparatus did not need, before
9/11, the ocean of general irrelevant information they are now
collecting and would very likely have drowned in it altogether.
Myth No. 11: At least, these initiatives are better than doing
nothing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that these
initiatives are robbing the American people of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, they are
doing much more harm than good to the goal of increasing domestic
security. Resources are being diverted from more useful projects and
in their present form and application these initiatives are not
effective deterrents to terrorists.
Conclusions:
The fallacies of these myths are apparent after even a cursory
glance at what they conceal and evade. The "slope" they represent is
not even a slippery one - it is a cliff over a disaster. Once these
initiatives are in place and affecting the governments of many
countries around the world having different laws, different values
and different agendas, the genie is truly out of the bottle and free
to run wild around the globe creating a myriad of unforeseen
consequences. The genie can never be put back in the bottle.
One of the more sinister aspects of what the United States in
unleashing on the world is the fact that these programs are being
done with utmost stealth and with no oversight and safeguards for
the citizens of any country. For repressive regimes, the rulers can
always point to acting in cooperation with their "friend", the
United States. For countries having varying degrees of democracy,
the despotic urgings of the US can be used to justify the
persecution of their own citizens.
For we totally unsuspecting Americans, the totalitarian aspect of
these programs is truly alarming. We have worked 230 years to build
a nation with a constitution that would safeguard us against the
actions of a government doing exactly what this Administration is
doing now. All this is being done under the cloak of hysteria
created after we were attacked in September of
2001. These things are being done by a government that tries to keep
its every action hidden from the people. In the eyes of our present
government, it is we Americans who are the enemy. "Terrorists" are
only a handy tool to be used against America and its founding
principles.
We Americans still have time to stop our headlong fall into
totalitarianism, but at this late hour it is going to take a very
concentrated effort to overcome the gravity of the lack of
information and apathy acting to pull us into disaster. Americans
must put their democracy to the test by contacting their elected
representatives and demanding that they become conversant with these
initiatives. For every program approved there must be an active
oversight program. Congressional representatives must be called upon
to investigate these programs and weigh them against our
Constitution. Any program that jeopardizes the individual or
collective "American Rights" under our Constitution must be stopped.
There must be no blind acceptance of "Executive Privilege".
Executive Orders must be examined and challenged when necessary for
the preservation of our democracy - even as badly damaged and
fragile as it is.
Reference: The International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS)
was founded by the American Civil Liberties Union, Focus on the
Global South, the Friends' Committee on National Legislation, the
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and Statewatch.
[1] ICAMS April 2005 Report pdf file, Page 14; [2] Page 24; [3] Page
32; [4] Page 48.
Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who
was once a "conservative" until he found there was nothing left to
conserve and as a veteran hates to see a tour in Korea go to waste.
(He may be reached at nkanders@bellsouth.net ).
Copyright Nolan K. Anderson
Click below to post a comment on this article
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
