Interesting essay re: "The Five Myths About Rendition" Topics: Privacy & Liberties, Security & Insecurity, US, GWOT, CIA, international, terrorism, counterterrorism Last Saturday (20 Oct 2007), the Washington Post carried a short essay by Daniel Benjamin about 5 Myths About Rendition (and That New Movie). Benjamin is a a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the co-author of The Next Attack: The Failure of the Global War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right. [[More about the book] The movie referenced in the essay's title is "Rendition", a story about an American woman whose Egyptian-born husband has been abducted and transfered to a foreign country for interrogation. Benjamin tries to address some popular perceptions about the practice of "rendition". (Rendition in counterterrorism contexts is the transfer of a person from one country to another outside of the normal extradition processes.) The myths Benjamin addresses are: Rendition is something the Bush administration cooked up. People who are "rendered" inevitably end up in a foreign slammer -- or worse. Step one of a rendition involves kidnapping the suspect. Rendition is just a euphemism for outsourcing torture. Pretty much anyone -- including U.S. citizens and green card holders -- can be rendered these days. Although Benjamin challenges these common claims about rendition, he does note some significant problems with the way it is being done nowadays. Benjamin also gives some glimpses from the the history of the rendition practice, including examples of its use in the Reagan and the Bush (the elder) Administrations. Also, the Israeli s 1960 capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina could be called a rendition even though the term wasn't used back then. J.D. Abolins

23.10.07 02:40 Permalink / comment

Op-Ed by 2 FBI veterans on the limitations of video surveillance Topics: Security & Insecurity,Insights, Privacy & Liberties, Surveillance, Panopticon, Public Safety This Sunday's Newark Star Ledger carried the essay "Cameras alone won't stop crime" by former FBI Drector William S. Sessions and former Special Agent Michael German. The authors were addressing Newark City's interest in using cameras after the August 4th murder of three college students and the injuring of a fourth. (By the way, there were two security cameras by the school where the shooting occurred. But the cameras were not functioning.) Interesting essay and, given the law enforcement and intelligence background of the two authors, well worth reading. It is important to note that they are not against all use of surveillance cameras. Rather it is the unrealistic expectation that cameras alone will protect society from crime and terrorism. Emphasising the cameras may both give a sense of false security and divert money from more effective security resources. Many Americans have been looking at the UK's recent experiences with terrorism incidents and believe that the extensive video surveillance systems, in themselves, would keep their communities safer. Sessions and German address that perception: --- Some proponents of extensive video surveillance claim that there are lessons to be learned from London's recent encounters with domestic terrorism. But what we have learned is that those events clearly demonstrate the limits of such systems. Those observations should cause Newark residents real concern as they invest in similar technology. Newark officials should recognize that even the United Kingdom's 4.2 million surveillance cameras did not stop the July 2005 subway bombings. Last month's unsuccessful car bombings in London and the Glasgow airport attack weren't thwarted by cameras either. Sorting through hundreds of thousands of hours of footage -- consuming the energies of count less law enforcement agents -- ultimately proved useless in preventing such attacks. Indeed a recent study by the Home Office in London -- the British equivalent of our Department of Homeland Security -- found that, even though video surveillance accounts for nearly three-quarters of their crime prevention spending, the cameras have "no effect on violent crimes." [Sessions & German may have been referring to the 2002 Home Office report "Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review". [pdf] -JDA] --- Then they point to the historical effectiveness in US cities of "the combination of good community policing, dogged investigations based upon probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and the cooperation of an informed populace". The last item may be the most challenging of the three given social problems such as the "stop snitching" mindset and frictions between the some communities and the police. Both authors are members of the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee. The Project has recently released "Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance." [pdf] Some good insights in the guidelines. I appreciate the efforts to develop a framework for using video surveillance in an open society. J.D. Abolins

20.8.07 03:43 Permalink / comment

A Legal Expert's Interesting View on Privacy in the J.K. Rowling Case Topics: Privacy & Liberties, UK law, public figures, public spaces, media, expectations of privacy Pinsent Masons law firm's OUT-LAW newsletter reports a privacy law expert claims that the judge in the Rowling privacy case made mistakes in judging against the Harry Potter series author. (The case was about the photographing for newspaper publication of Rowling, her husband, and her son while they were out for a walk.) Rosemary Jay, the legal expert, argues that celebrities may be more vulnerable to privacy intrusions than other people. Jay said: --- "If I was photographed in the street I would be no more than a piece of street furniture; there would be no breach of my privacy because nobody would care that I was in that photo," said Jay. "But the photograph of Mr and Mrs Murray and the child is wholly different. They are not street furniture; the photographer took that photograph covertly with a long lens camera specifically to produce information about them and publicise it to the world at large because it was information about them as specific living individuals. That is wholly different to taking a photograph of someone as they happen to be getting on a bus when you don't care who they are and no one else will know." she said. "Mrs Murray [J.K. Rowling filed the suit under her married name] and her family are vulnerable to media pressure on their private space. They may be rich; they may be privileged, but nevertheless these people are vulnerable, and I think there is a question of principle there that asks should the law be prepared to give them additional protection because of that vulnerability?" --- This view is interesting in that it is often easy to see the relative powerlessness of "ordinary people" in dealing with privacy intrusions compared to whealthy and powerful people. The well-off can hire bodyguards, buy secluded properties, have others run day-to-errands, etc. Celebrities can often argue a financial impact of certain privacy intrusions, such the commercial use of their likeness without permission. But, as Jay notes, celebrities are often more interesting to large numbers of people than ordinary people. So it can be harder to keep some level of privacy in one's life. The families of celebrities are often affected as well.So, even though, I tend towards a more democratic or equal-treatment approach to privacy, I do see much merit in Jay's view. Yet, I keep in mind the judge's concerns that Rowling's privacy intrusion complaint would imply overly extensive privacy protections. "If a simple walk down the street qualifies for protection then it is difficult to see what would not," Justice Patten said. "For most people who are not public figures in the sense of being politicians or the like, there will be virtually no aspect of their life which cannot be characterized as private." Although it sounds good for privacy buffs, such an extensive view of privacy even in public spaces would have a tremendous impact upon things such the freedom of speech. In an era of growing technological means of surveillance, the issue of what "privacy" people have in public spaces has yet to be settled. Although there is the "you have NO privacy in public spaces" argument is attractive, there are some difficult cases that arise. Several US upskirt photography cases have seen the use of the "no privacy in public spaces" argument. Then there are more distinct cases of stalking. . J.D. Abolins

17.8.07 04:45 Permalink / comment

Ziggy Comic Strip on Fishbowl Life & Privacy Topics: Privacy & Liberties, Weird & Humorous, Item, Item Cute Ziggy comic strip. At first, Ziggy's comment to his goldfish, "I didn't know that privacy was an issue for you guys", seems merely like a jest on "living in a fishbowl". But as I thought about it a bit, it has profound insight about various ways people may think about privacy. It can be easy to assume that people whose lives are in the public view, especially if it's by their choice, have nothing they consider private. This might not be the case. The people may have their own boundaries for disclosure to the world. Maybe they don't use the word "private" to describe information they rather share with a smaller group of people. Many of the younger people reported to not care about privacy might actually have some point where they do care. Maybe not now, maybe never for some individuals. But some will have a moment where privacy counts. J.D. Abolins

24.7.07 04:35 Permalink / 1 Comment / comment

Daniel Solove on Privacy & "I've Got Nothing to Hide" Arguments Topics: Privacy & Liberties, Security & Insecurity, Insights, "Privurity" A common response to privacy concerns is something along the lines of "I've done nothing wrong and, thus, I have nothing to hide." A more aggressive version is "Why do you insist on privacy? You've got something to hide?" George Washington University Law School Associate Professor Daniel J. Solove examines such views and provides his own thoughtful response in his article "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" J.D. Abolins

13.7.07 03:56 Permalink / comment

Text Messaging May Be a Loophole in US Campaigning Laws Topics: Privacy & Liberties, Security & Insecurity, Networked World, Elections, Democracy, Politics This weekend's Sunday Star Ledger (Newark,NJ USA) had an article "A high-tech way to skirt the laws on campaigning". The way to skirt the laws restricting political campaigning at polling places is text messaging. The article starts with this scenario and question: --- Imagine you're walking into the voting booth, or your precinct's equivalent, on Election Day and suddenly your cell phone signals an incoming text message. Your candidate, the message says, has been indicted on some outrageous charge. Do you rethink your voting intentions or ignore the message? --- Personally, I wouldn't answer my cell phone in when I am voting.  Even If I did looking at the message, I'd be suspicious of such a message. At the very least, I'd check other sources. The issue of the potential last minute political pitches via text messaging is an interesting one to ponder. But is it really a serious threat to the democratic process? I doubt it.  At least, not for the simple political adverts being pushed to the voting public. Perhaps, some significant risk could eventually emerge whereby buying votes could be done by using a cell phone cam video as the proof of one's choices. (one of the reasons for the privacy of votes in many places is to discourage vote selling/buying by eliminating a way for the buyer to know how the vote was cast.) Even then, the electronic trail would be extensive and a liability for the participants. Still the article raises the all familiar reminder that various laws have not kept up well with technological changes. J.D. Abolins

28.5.07 02:09 Permalink / 1 Comment / comment

Prof. Orin Kerr's Observations on Virtual Analogies and Physical Searches Topics: Privacy & Liberties, Security & Insecurity, Insights, Law, US Bill of Rights, Searches, Police. Privurity Prof. Orin Kerr recently had an interesting posting on Virtual Analogies, Physical Searches, and the Fourth Amendment at the Volokh Conspiracy blog. He discusses a US court case, United States v. Andrus [pdf], and the implications of the way courts handle the "clash between virtual analogies and physical facts". I won't repeat the issues with the particular case here. I am more fascinated with the broader issues of the "clash". Prof Kerr explains, --- Most users think of computer searches as occuring at the virtual level, because that's the user experience. But computer forensic software works at the physical level: it treats the hard drive as a physical device that contains millions of zeros and one, not as a virtual "box" of information accessed through an operating system. User profiles and most password protection operate only at a virtual level, so a government forensic analyst operating at a physical level wouldn't even notice the difference unless he was specifically looking for it. Why does it matter? Well, it matters because the answer to the legal question seems to hinge on whether you apply the Fourth Amendment from a virtual perspective or a physical perspective. --- By the way, Prof. Kerr had explored some of these issues in a 2005 Harvard Law Review paper on Searches and Seizure in a Digital World [pdf]. I found Prof. Kerr's blog entry's closing questions quite notable in an era where courts and other institutions are dealing with science and technology: --- How do you measure the reasonableness of a belief when understandings of what computers are and how they work are so different among typical users and forensic analysts? Should the law follow the understandings of the experts who understand the technology or the general users who don't? --- Good questions! I keep picturing some of the Dilbert and User Friendly comic strips depiction of techies dealing with clueless people. Unfortunately, scientific & technological clueness in law and public policy might not be so funny. J.D. Abolins

1.5.07 04:27 Permalink / comment

 [next page]