What's All This Brouhaha? » National Security

Google Latitude privacy

Eric — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:01:00 +0000

Google has taken steps to address the privacy concerns over their Latitude service, and most people seem to be satisfied.Â One thing I’m slightly surprised about is that no one seems to be particularly suspicious of what their statement

Google stores only the most recent automatic update or location selection you manually entered on our servers.

does NOT say, to wit, whether the data might be stored on servers other than “our servers”.

If DHS wants to track your location via your cell phone, they don’t really need Google’s help doing that. On the other hand, if a private company is already collecting data on people’s movements, that must look like a mighty tempting target…

TSA keep us safe from clowns

Eric — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:40:53 +0000

The TSA confiscated a clown’s makeup kit, despite that it did not contain liquids or gels, and had less than 3 oz. of greasepaint. It’s good to know that they are doing their best to eliminate the horrible threat that clowns pose to aviation. [h/t BoingBoing]

Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure

Eric — Wed, 02 May 2007 06:07:03 +0000

That’s what President Bush said about his veto of the appropriations bill. He’s wrong, though. The failure has already occurred, and deploying more troops to Iraq will only cause more American casualties, and probably more Iraqi casualties as well.

Support our troops! Bring them home!

Warrantless wiretaps not justified by national security claims

Eric — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:23:05 +0000

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Douglas gives a concurring opinion in which he expresses serious concern over warrantless wiretaps:

While I join the opinion of the Court, I feel compelled to reply to the separate concurring opinion of my Brother WHITE, which I view as a wholly unwarranted green light for the Executive Branch to resort to electronic eaves-dropping without a warrant in cases which the Executive Branch itself labels “national security” matters.

Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate [389 U.S. 347, 360] and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate.

There is, so far as I understand constitutional history, no distinction under the Fourth Amendment between types of crimes. Article III, 3, gives “treason” a very narrow definition and puts restrictions on its proof. But the Fourth Amendment draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests in cases of “hot pursuit” and the arrests on visible or other evidence of probable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of crime.

I would respect the present lines of distinction and not improvise because a particular crime seems particularly heinous. When the Framers took that step, as they did with treason, the worst crime of all, they made their purpose manifest.

I wonder what Justice Douglas would have written had he considered a case concerning FISA.