Tag Archives: privacy

American Security

Posted on by
2

Thinks about the Obama administration’s current, and ongoing, failure regarding the Office of Personnel Management. After having “lost” the background check data it had “stored” in its computer facility last fall, the Inspector General of OPM said that

parts of its network should be shut down because they were riddled with weaknesses that “could potentially have national security implications.”

OPM didn’t bother. Now we learn that People’s Republic of China hackers (should we start calling them invaders?) entered OPM’s computer network and stole the personal data of all 2+ million Federal employees and the personal data of a skosh under an addition 2 million past Federal employees. As The Wall Street Journal put it,

[T]his isn’t a James Bond movie. It’s a Dilbert cartoon.

The WSJ goes on to say that the Federal bureaucracy can’t protect its data. I say, given the long-term duration of these hacks, including those by Russian and Iranian hacks and that IG recommendation, it’s not a matter “can’t.” The Feds refuse to try.

Are these hacks or an ongoing invasion?

The episode is one more confirmation that China is waging an unrelenting if unacknowledged cyber war against the United States.

Does Obama care at all about the security of the United States or of individual Americans?

A Proper Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

And by Article III judges….

The Second Circuit appellate court has ruled in favor of individual liberty, privacy, and free speech all in one ruling.

[The Second Circuit] ruled Thursday the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of millions of Americans’ phone records isn’t authorized by the Patriot Act, as the Bush and Obama administrations have long maintained.

The Court held, in part,

…we hold that the text of [the law in question] cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program. We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously. Until such time as it does so, however, we decline to deviate from widely accepted interpretations of well‐established legal standards.

Indeed. The question is a political one and not a judicial one. It may be that Congress will screw this up and authorize the thing, but in that event we have recourse: we can fire the blackguards in an upcoming election and select, instead, representatives who understand our rights as free men.

The court’s ruling was based on one of the core questions regarding this law:

[T]he government takes the position that the metadata collected—a vast amount of which does not contain directly “relevant” information, as the government concedes—are nevertheless “relevant” because they may allow the NSA, at some unknown time in the future, utilizing its ability to sift through the trove of irrelevant data it has collected up to that point, to identify information that is relevant. We agree with appellants that such an expansive concept of “relevance” is unprecedented and unwarranted.

Sorry guys—no fishing expeditions, either.

The Second Circuit’s ruling can be read here.

Assault on Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

…by the Obama administration is continuing in spades. This time, it’s a naked assault on a conservative Congressman, Jason Chaffetz (R, UT). The Secret Service “leaked” information concerning a decade old application for work with the SS submitted by Chaffetz and which was rejected by the SS. This sort of thing is confidential, which SS employees know full well.

Supposedly, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson personally called Chaffetz after the release of that confidential information, as did Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy.

However.

Chaffetz is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and he’s

been relentless in his scrutiny of the [Secret Service], particularly in the wake of a March incident where agents returning from a party drove into an active bomb investigation scene. Chaffetz earlier this week subpoenaed the two agents in question—a step Johnson called “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

He’s also been an ardent critic of Obama administration policies all across the board.

Now, it’s certainly true that, in the larger scheme of things, this is a relatively minor matter. But regarding that larger scheme of things, this is a part of that larger scheme.

In light of that, what’s the value of these…apologies?

How do they make Chaffetz, the victim of this assault on privacy, whole?

How do they give any material assurance that this miscreancy won’t be repeated?

What’s really needed is a wholesale replacement of management (I won’t say leadership) of DHS and of the Secret Service.

Remember this in the fall of 2016.

Driving Death Rate

Posted on by
Reply

It fell sharply in 2012, the latest year for which data were studied by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Assuming Fox News accurately summarized the study, I have a couple questions.

Improved vehicle designs and safety technology have a lot to do with the reduced risk, but a weak economy that led to reductions in driving may also have played a role….

Well, yeah. This is why I’d rather see the death rates per (million? hundred thousand?) miles driven. The Edsel in its half-day might have had a very low rate per million sold, too. Or a sky high rate. Four of the cars the Institute identified as having no deaths in 2012 were luxury cars—which won’t have as many miles driven per model as a middle-class car like Honda Accord or a Ford Taurus.

Then there’s what the Institute used for their baseline: 48 deaths over the 2008-2009 time frame. I have to wonder, given events in the latter half of 2008 and extending through 2009, how many of those 48 were due to design and technology and how many were due to driving while distracted by distraught and/or suicide by driving accident. One such death would skew the results by two per centage points.

Because We’re Not Being Spied on Enough

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department has acknowledged constructing a database to track the movements of millions of vehicles across the U.S. in real time.

And

A Justice Department spokesman told Fox News that the tracking program is compliant with federal [law]… claiming it “includes protocols that limit who can access the database and all of the license plate information is deleted after 90 days.”

Perhaps (although with this Justice Department or this administration, that’s hard to see), but that doesn’t make it right, or consistent with the precepts of our Constitution. And how do we know the information is “deleted after 90 days?” We don’t know when it was collected, starting that clock. We have only the Eric Holder DoJ’s word that the data are deleted. We know from experience with IRS “lost emails” that “deleted” doesn’t necessarily mean deleted.

Another kicker:

It is not clear whether the tracking is overseen or approved by any court.

The Wall Street Journal had this from its original tale:

The primary goal of the license-plate tracking program, run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is to seize cars, cash and other assets to combat drug trafficking, according to one government document. But the database’s use has expanded to hunt for vehicles associated with numerous other potential crimes, from kidnappings to killings to rape suspects, say people familiar with the matter.

The program’s current scope is this:

[It] collects data about vehicle movements, including time, direction and location, from high-tech cameras placed strategically on major highways. Many devices also record visual images of drivers and passengers, which are sometimes clear enough for investigators to confirm identities, according to DEA documents and people familiar with the program.

The documents show that the DEA also uses license-plate readers operated by state, local, and federal law-enforcement agencies to feed into its own network and create a far-reaching, constantly updating database of electronic eyes scanning traffic on the roads….

That’s the problem with a government program—it grows, it never shrinks, it never is eliminated. When the program is a secret one, its expansion is hard to discern, and the program is even harder for a free people to control. When the program is used to spy on the citizens, it’s extremely dangerous to our liberty.

What will happen when the program is further expanded—because anonymous donations to this or that political organization is viewed, by government, to be inimical? What will happen when the program is used to harass groups of Americans of whom the men in government disapprove, or of whom the men in government especially favor? Think that can’t happen? Look no further than this Justice Department and white voter intimidation by New Black Panthers and this DoJ’s avowed policy of not going after voter crimes involving white victims and black perpetrators. Look no further than this administration’s use of the IRS to go after political groups the White House doesn’t like.